It has more of a resemblance to Capitalism than most western European countries. I can't even say they are socialist! The real socialist contries are the Scandanavian countries where they tax lots but almost every public ammenity is free.
PS: I am chinese <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> !?!?!?
My GCSE history just became contradicted 50 times by the first page of this topic.
"China and Cuba are the only 2 remaining Capitalist states". :S
Would I be right in saying China just does not think it's communist? *Cough* Propagand / censorship / Taiwan *cough*.
Acutally, if I include the word "Taiwan" or "Capitalist" doesn't that prevent any chinese ISP from loading the page? I read somewhere that all ISPs must router connections though a massive Government Proxy Server. :o
--
I think this is an interesting comparasion; boo to the "NS is a game, ****" people. Commanders are the perfect dictators, I mean, they control *health*!
And for anyone who does not follow this political mumbo-jumbo, here's the Cow Politics page I finally found: <a href='http://www.tysknews.com/LiteStuff/cow_politics.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.tysknews.com/LiteStuff/cow_politics.htm</a>
<!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> hahaha, only after you have seen china from the inside to know that its about as communist as the US <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
anyway, AFAIK the "Great Firewall of China" is all but a myth. but what do I know. er btw I live in the uk though...
Perhaps they need Great Firewall of China because whole China got only few IP adresses assigned (same amount as every US university has for whole China) so they must use proxy and NAT's to share IP's.
Well you cant really factor leadership into it, because communism and capitalism are <i>economic</i> systems, not <i>government</i> types. You can very well have a democratic communism (which fits the ideal much more than a dictatorship) and a dictatorial capitalist country (quite a few of those, actually).
i guess the western media have made me believe that cuba/china/russia are communist countries
until now..
isn't that wrong? mum and dad taught me they were communists.. what's goin' on.. why are people helping the media outsource the false truths in/voluntarily?
ahh well i'll better understand this facet of politics now
<!--QuoteBegin-HAMBONE+Apr 2 2004, 12:56 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (HAMBONE @ Apr 2 2004, 12:56 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Aliens split the resources equally, and even if they are the best they won't get much more than anyone else on their team. That's socialism. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Ah, but aliens DO get more if they are better... that's why you get res for killing marines and structures. Therefore it is safe to say that the resource stream is simply "minimum wage" and your individual ability determines the speed at which you become a dominant force.... this looks more and more like capitalism to me.
I agree with Forlorn about considering marines as a dictatorship (woah... i agreed with Forlon... everyone watch out for pieces of sky falling down =P). The marines can do as much as they want, but all their rewards are promptly delivered to the commander (evil dictator). At that point, only close relatives and trusted advisors are given priority in equipment issuance (better players tend to get stuff more often) before sent to their doom.
<!--QuoteBegin-Mantrid+Apr 1 2004, 11:37 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Mantrid @ Apr 1 2004, 11:37 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> They all follow one leader (the Commander) and obey his will.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> lol, I just wish that was true.
<!--QuoteBegin-Kommunist+Apr 3 2004, 03:32 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Kommunist @ Apr 3 2004, 03:32 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> ipx`vortex <peter>: Your sarcasam fits my taste perfectly <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> wow ace dude, not only do I thank the thread but this guy knows his stuff - and yes he's right about social democracy in scandanavia.
I started to learn about sweden half a year ago and am soon to embark on learning abit of the language.
Planning to move to what i think is one of the most evolved democracies in the world. Your infrastructure is awesome, your internet connections are awesome, n transport owns ( like the chix ). Peace to your country, even if it turns out you may not like it.
Australia is so boring and bias'd I gotta get outta here. By the way 100mbit in Sweden owns 1.5 mbit ADSL connections for say $150 USD unlimited P: with 256k upstream.
I hate this country. That's how much I'd have to pay for 1.5mbit P: it's a joke, and with 256k up no-one can host a decent FTP neither allow it.
Since it apparently gives many in here trouble, here's a short summary of the 'original' communistic theory, Marxism, which I typed up a year ago for a Discussion thread:
Named after the father of the communistic idea, Karl Marx (1818 - 1883, I think), who observed industrialization at its first peak and drew some rather interesting conclusions. Many people instantly get confused by Marx' teachings because they don't realize that to him, economic power and political power are the same. The group of people - called 'class' - in possession of the means of production is always also in possession of the political power, and will use it to create a system that defends its claim on the economic power. This was in Marx' perception the case in the feudal system of the Dark Age, the merkantilistic systems of Absolutism, and the capitalistic Democracies and constitutional Monarchies of his time. The possession of the means of production will however not remain in one classes hands forever. The social system that's the consequence of the economic and political situation will always be tailored after the needs of the ruling class, and thus be unjust for the other classes, which will thus sooner or later revolt and take the ownership into their own hands to begin the circle anew. Marx saw himself at the beginning of the end of the capitalistic reign: The workers, the opressed class of his time, had fallen into incredible social misery only comparable to that seen in todays poorest Third World countries. At the same time, more and more wealth accumulated in less and less hands of monopolizing industrials and the middle class of craftsmen and small merchants was wearing thin and thinner. To Marx, this development would end in a world with an incredibly small and incredibly wealthy elite, contrasted by the vast masses of poor labourers, which then would, you guessed it, revolt. This revolution wasn't really sharply layed out by Marx, on the contrary, he assumed it to be spontaneous - the load would just become to heavy to bear, people would air their anger, the uprising would begin - and, and this is an important point, global. In his opinion, the whole world would polarize into workers and owners, and once some workers would've done the revolutionary step, the world would follow. The inevitably following state of an ownership of the means of production by the workers was called 'Socialism'. Marx did however believe that the revolution wouldn't end here. The relatively low number of future opressed - the old elite - and the vast numbers of new owners would make something that can be described as an evolutionary leap possible: The generalization of all means of production. Keep in mind that in Marx' opinion, all power originates from economic ownership. The fact that virtually <i>anyone</i> would have access to anything he or she needed would thus mean that political, social, and any other kind of power would be, for the first time, distributed evenly amongst the whole of humanity. This state of constant self-government, which would effectively neglect the neccessity of a governing class in the traditional sense, was called 'Communism'.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I believe that communism and capitoalism all have to do with government and because NS is a game, I highly doubt that NS was intended to be a war between those two forms of governments. It is more based on technology vs nature because the marines want to destory a hive. They didn't even consider an armistice or using the hive to research a cure for cancer. Wouldn't you prefer a civilized match of flashlight tag in the Ready Room?
Comments
pffft china is not communist.
It has more of a resemblance to Capitalism than most western European countries.
I can't even say they are socialist! The real socialist contries are the Scandanavian countries where they tax lots but almost every public ammenity is free.
PS: I am chinese <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
!?!?!?
My GCSE history just became contradicted 50 times by the first page of this topic.
"China and Cuba are the only 2 remaining Capitalist states". :S
Would I be right in saying China just does not think it's communist? *Cough* Propagand / censorship / Taiwan *cough*.
Acutally, if I include the word "Taiwan" or "Capitalist" doesn't that prevent any chinese ISP from loading the page? I read somewhere that all ISPs must router connections though a massive Government Proxy Server. :o
--
I think this is an interesting comparasion; boo to the "NS is a game, ****" people.
Commanders are the perfect dictators, I mean, they control *health*!
And for anyone who does not follow this political mumbo-jumbo, here's the Cow Politics page I finally found:
<a href='http://www.tysknews.com/LiteStuff/cow_politics.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.tysknews.com/LiteStuff/cow_politics.htm</a>
<!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
hahaha, only after you have seen china from the inside to know that its about as communist as the US <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
anyway, AFAIK the "Great Firewall of China" is all but a myth. but what do I know. er btw I live in the uk though...
i guess the western media have made me believe that cuba/china/russia are communist countries
until now..
isn't that wrong? mum and dad taught me they were communists.. what's goin' on.. why are people helping the media outsource the false truths in/voluntarily?
ahh well i'll better understand this facet of politics now
Ah, but aliens DO get more if they are better... that's why you get res for killing marines and structures. Therefore it is safe to say that the resource stream is simply "minimum wage" and your individual ability determines the speed at which you become a dominant force.... this looks more and more like capitalism to me.
I agree with Forlorn about considering marines as a dictatorship (woah... i agreed with Forlon... everyone watch out for pieces of sky falling down =P). The marines can do as much as they want, but all their rewards are promptly delivered to the commander (evil dictator). At that point, only close relatives and trusted advisors are given priority in equipment issuance (better players tend to get stuff more often) before sent to their doom.
They all follow one leader (the Commander) and obey his will.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
lol, I just wish that was true.
wow ace dude, not only do I thank the thread but this guy knows his stuff -
and yes he's right about social democracy in scandanavia.
I started to learn about sweden half a year ago and am soon to embark on learning abit of the language.
Planning to move to what i think is one of the most evolved democracies in the world. Your infrastructure is awesome, your internet connections are awesome, n transport owns ( like the chix ). Peace to your country, even if it turns out you may not like it.
Australia is so boring and bias'd I gotta get outta here.
By the way 100mbit in Sweden owns 1.5 mbit ADSL connections for say $150 USD unlimited P: with 256k upstream.
I hate this country. That's how much I'd have to pay for 1.5mbit P: it's a joke, and with 256k up no-one can host a decent FTP neither allow it.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Marxism:</b>
Named after the father of the communistic idea, Karl Marx (1818 - 1883, I think), who observed industrialization at its first peak and drew some rather interesting conclusions.
Many people instantly get confused by Marx' teachings because they don't realize that to him, economic power and political power are the same. The group of people - called 'class' - in possession of the means of production is always also in possession of the political power, and will use it to create a system that defends its claim on the economic power.
This was in Marx' perception the case in the feudal system of the Dark Age, the merkantilistic systems of Absolutism, and the capitalistic Democracies and constitutional Monarchies of his time.
The possession of the means of production will however not remain in one classes hands forever. The social system that's the consequence of the economic and political situation will always be tailored after the needs of the ruling class, and thus be unjust for the other classes, which will thus sooner or later revolt and take the ownership into their own hands to begin the circle anew.
Marx saw himself at the beginning of the end of the capitalistic reign: The workers, the opressed class of his time, had fallen into incredible social misery only comparable to that seen in todays poorest Third World countries. At the same time, more and more wealth accumulated in less and less hands of monopolizing industrials and the middle class of craftsmen and small merchants was wearing thin and thinner.
To Marx, this development would end in a world with an incredibly small and incredibly wealthy elite, contrasted by the vast masses of poor labourers, which then would, you guessed it, revolt. This revolution wasn't really sharply layed out by Marx, on the contrary, he assumed it to be spontaneous - the load would just become to heavy to bear, people would air their anger, the uprising would begin - and, and this is an important point, global. In his opinion, the whole world would polarize into workers and owners, and once some workers would've done the revolutionary step, the world would follow.
The inevitably following state of an ownership of the means of production by the workers was called 'Socialism'. Marx did however believe that the revolution wouldn't end here. The relatively low number of future opressed - the old elite - and the vast numbers of new owners would make something that can be described as an evolutionary leap possible: The generalization of all means of production. Keep in mind that in Marx' opinion, all power originates from economic ownership.
The fact that virtually <i>anyone</i> would have access to anything he or she needed would thus mean that political, social, and any other kind of power would be, for the first time, distributed evenly amongst the whole of humanity. This state of constant self-government, which would effectively neglect the neccessity of a governing class in the traditional sense, was called 'Communism'.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->