NationStates Jolt Archive

I have noticed a lot of hatred towards communists lately. Being a communist nation, I want to know why other nations hate communism.
Communism is a system of government in which people are entirely represented, classes (poor-middle-rich) are non-existent, pacifism is encouraged, education and health care are free for everyone, and freedom is valued. Why would anyone hate that system?

Many people don't like communism b/c there are some nations that are militant communists who like to smite others who don't agree with their principles. This is not right, but I agree communism does have an unduly bad reputation...

Yes, it has a horrible reputation.
Whilst communism is an extremely good ideal, it isn't very realistic. No one in history has been able to create a truly communist nation as Marx saw it. Too often, as Siap pointed out, they turn into military dictatorships and people are generally oppressed.
It's good in thought, but bites in reality.

I agree with Risban, it is good on paper, but blows in real life. Humans naturally, in my experience, don't really want to be forced to share, competition in the long run works better, because it motivates people to actually one-up their competitors, and produce goods of quality, and anyway, isn't private property a human right?

This is more of a General Forums topic, really....

It is my contention that "militant communists" (as you call them) are not communists at all. In The Communist Manifesto (Marx/engels) violence is only justified in the event of a revolution (in which power is seized from the bourgeois). Those nations that not only abuse their populace, but war-monger are simply de-facto dictatorships that bastardize the integrity of a decent system. Communism is not supposed to have a dictatorship. True communism is comprised of entirely democratic elections. Leon Trotsky once said:"Democracy is to socialism what air is to the human body."

It is my contention that "militant communists" (as you call them) are not communists at all. In The Communist Manifesto (Marx/engels) violence is only justified in the event of a revolution (in which power is seized from the bourgeois). Those nations that not only abuse their populace, but war-monger are simply de-facto dictatorships that bastardize the integrity of a decent system. Communism is not supposed to have a dictatorship. True communism is comprised of entirely democratic elections. Leon Trotsky once said:"Democracy is to socialism what air is to the human body."

And no one could have said it better than Trotsky

isn't private property a human right?

..

John Locke thought so....then again he was an aristocrat. Isn't life a human right? When society values material goods over the well-being of citizens, you have a problem. Ask yourself this: "Is my life and well-being worth more than a Sony DVD player?" If you say "no" then I'm obviously wrong.

Easy there....nowhere did I say that property was greater than life. I consider the rights of life, liberty, and property to be equal in importance. Life is irreplaceable, DVD players can be bought again.

Look at the Sandinistas. Look at the Vietcong. Look at the National Liberation Front (Ben Bella's group), ZANU, FRELIMO, the 26th of July Movement, the Bolsheviks, the Chinese communists, the Khmer Rouge, the Pathet Lao, etc. That is why I hate communism.

Look at the Sandinistas. Look at the Vietcong. Look at the National Liberation Front (Ben Bella's group), ZANU, FRELIMO, the 26th of July Movement, the Bolsheviks, the Chinese communists, the Khmer Rouge, the Pathet Lao, etc. That is why I hate communism.

If you had read the posts before yours you would realize that I denounced all "alleged" militant communist regimes. To reiterate, communism can only exist if the people are free and there is no dictatorship. It is that simple. China, USSR, Cuba, Vietnam, etc...all fake communists.

Even though communism is great in theory(like many other political systems), one of the valuables crucial for it to work is flawed and inconsistant: people. As much as I respect humanism, not all people are born good,or selfless, shall I say. People are power-hungry and greedy. They might start out with good intentions, but they are easily corrupted.

"Before the Athenian attempt, few on earth could have imagined the plebiscite as a functioning implement of governance. Before the first cities even more primitive forms of government and economy were presumably dismissed as unworkable. This prime argument against communism is almost unspeakably stupid."

-Comrade Sopworth Igo, Commonwealth Professional Civil Servant.

"Communism is an economic system like any other, and it can be practiced in purity or dilution, with efficiency or corruption. The same is true of capitalism and slavery.
"The Igovian Soviet Commonwealth of Beth Gellert has come to recognise the difference between the struggle for economic propriety and freedom and the struggle for political freedom. The former is an on-going evolutionary epic with chapters on slavery, mercantilism, capitalism, and presently, in our case, communism. The latter reads on tribalism, feudalism, representative (or false) democracy, and finally on direct democracy, as realised in The Commonwealth.
"So far as anyone here can tell, communism is not inherently good, nor is it inherently bad. Freedom, however, can and must be achieved regardless of economic circumstance, and with it shall certainly be brought economic propriety."

-Commonwealth Chief Consul comrade Chivo.

If you had read the posts before yours you would realize that I denounced all "alleged" militant communist regimes. To reiterate, communism can only exist if the people are free and there is no dictatorship. It is that simple. China, USSR, Cuba, Vietnam, etc...all fake communists.

Gotcha. The communism you're thinking of is something I don't mind. But the other kind...it can roll over and die, for all I care.

A funny story about that, in RL, my family on my dad's side had some substantial properties taken from them by the Chinese Communists after they took power.....I often wonder might have been.

Yeah, the Khmer Rouge were screwed up...I heard many of them were recruited from hill tribesmen with grudges against the city-dwellers, and many were child soldiers.....that might make things turn sour, real fast.

Castro? He is harmless now...I find him funny. He didn't start out Communist, he was originally anti-Communist (the original Cuban Communists during the Batists days actually backed Batista for making the 1940 Constitution), but he turned Red after the US got hostile...

Seriuosly, Communist ideals are used much like other democratic or even fascist ideals, they're used as rhetoric to unite the people for a certain cause, even if the government isn't really compatible with them.

But you said violence can be justified in revolution. When do you determine when a revolution is over? And what limits on violence are there in revolution?

One can simply say that our revolution is not over until our ideals are spread throughout the world, in which case those militant communists become justified under your own idea that violence in revolution is justified.

Look at the Sandinistas. Look at the Vietcong. Look at the National Liberation Front (Ben Bella's group), ZANU, FRELIMO, the 26th of July Movement, the Bolsheviks, the Chinese communists, the Khmer Rouge, the Pathet Lao, etc. That is why I hate communism.

Same with me. Some of them can be nice people(I happen to know one), but usually Communism in real life is just a bunch of big contradictions and insanity.

Easy there....nowhere did I say that property was greater than life. I consider the rights of life, liberty, and property to be equal in importance. Life is irreplaceable, DVD players can be bought again.

True, you never said that property was greater than life. I am simply suggesting that capitalism deteriorates the morals and values of society. Capitalism always results in oppression, kleptocratic government, etc...

Look at corporations such as Wal-Mart, (Fmr.)Enron, Haliburton, (Fmr.)Standard Oil, they all abuse the working classes.

Look at the Sandinistas. Look at the Vietcong. Look at the National Liberation Front (Ben Bella's group), ZANU, FRELIMO, the 26th of July Movement, the Bolsheviks, the Chinese communists, the Khmer Rouge, the Pathet Lao, etc. That is why I hate communism.

"Putting aside, for a moment, the fact of US support for Pol Pot, it must be said that Vietcong, like Al Qaeda, is a term invented by US propagandists because it sounds sinister and menacing. To use it matter of factly as you have is indicative of gross ignorance of the subject in hand."

-Comrade Graeme Igo, Commonwealth Professional Civil Servant.

A funny story about that, in RL, my family on my dad's side had some substantial properties taken from them by the Chinese Communists after they took power.....I often wonder might have been.

Yeah, the Khmer Rouge were screwed up...I heard many of them were recruited from hill tribesmen with grudges against the city-dwellers, and many were child soldiers.....that might make things turn sour, real fast.

Castro? He is harmless now...I find him funny. He didn't start out Communist, he was originally anti-Communist (the original Cuban Communists during the Batists days actually backed Batista for making the 1940 Constitution), but he turned Red after the US got hostile...

Seriuosly, Communist ideals are used much like other democratic or even fascist ideals, they're used as rhetoric to unite the people for a certain cause, even if the government isn't really compatible with them.

No, Castro was always communist. Read, for example, The Fourth Floor by Earl E.T. Smith and Red Star Over Cuba by Nathaniel Weyl.

I could write this out a lot nicer, but I just don't have the energy.


I agree with them.

It sounds good, but it does not really work, and never has been implemented in it's true Marxist form. You see, the leaders who are supposed to be helping the transition along don't seem to like the part about them not having that power any more, for one thing.

Secondly, you need a common enemy, the Czars and the rich, the United States, whoever.

Communism, as you can see, works for a little while, but then it always breaks down.

And another thing, people like to keep what they earn. In communism, if I am a genius chemist or something and this other guy is just some lazy,non working dumbass, he reaps the benefit and wealth that I bring. He gets what I worked for!

And then, the collective farms. Well, with the corrupt leadership, it is all state owned, and, the worker, you see, it becomes the same thing as under the former oppresor. You work the land for ten years, you are industrious, and yet none of it ever ever belongs to you! NO, it belongs to all the lazy bums who did nothing. How is that fair?

Now, in Europe, communist goverments caused so much suffering, death and hardship, how could they not hate it?

In North America, not only was there the constant propaganda campaigns depicting the evils of communism, but, North Americans are so rich, and you ask us to share all our wealth with everyone. Well, guess what?

I worked in that factory for 19 years, I fed my family, I worked for everything I owned, and now you want me to share all my stuff with you?

Fuck off.



ANd that is the general thang.



This is not very well written, is it? Ah well.

"Putting aside, for a moment, the fact of US support for Pol Pot, it must be said that Vietcong, like Al Qaeda, is a term invented by US propagandists because it sounds sinister and menacing. To use it matter of factly as you have is indicative of gross ignorance of the subject in hand."

-Comrade Graeme Igo, Commonwealth Professional Civil Servant.

Bullshit, the U.S. never supported Pol Pot. They supported Lon Nol. And Vietcong was not a term coined by the U.S., it was coined by Ngo Dinh Diem.

The simple fact is, all current "Communist" countries are State-Capitalist dictatorship perversions of what marx wanted to be a beautiful thing. :headbang:
It's the Capitalists fault.

look... you people are saying that communism is good on paper, but is not very realistic. what about democracy? The United States is one of the least democratic countries in the world. the country isn't even founded on principles of democracy. read the articles of confederation, the bill of rights, and the constitution carefully. no democracy is mentioned. for example: in New Jersey in 1798, an article declared that anyone could own land as long as they had a networth of at least 50 continental dollars. once many women and free blacks started owning land the article was quickly changed. then in 1803, the article stated that only free white male citizens with a networth of at least 50 continental dollars could own land.
so your arguement that communism is unrealistic is absurd when compared to whether or not democracy is possible. think about it this way: is having a state where all people have an equal say and can live their own lives seperately but equally while having the same governmental say but are not ensured of any rights as a whole more possible than a state where all people are guaranteed the same basic rights and are not pressured to keep up with their neighbors and dont feel the need to fight against the system because the system loves and takes care of them equally? answer that!

But you said violence can be justified in revolution. When do you determine when a revolution is over? And what limits on violence are there in revolution?

One can simply say that our revolution is not over until our ideals are spread throughout the world, in which case those militant communists become justified under your own idea that violence in revolution is justified.

You make an excellent point. The whole set up (I admit) is macheovalian, though revolution is a human right. If you are being oppressed, and violence is the only possible course of action, it is justified for a revolution (to clarify, a coup d'etat if you will). As tragic as it is, there are no limits on the violence of a revolution.
As far as the "global communism" is concerned, communism discourages imperialism. So, in theory, it would be antithetical to the communist agenda to invade another nation.

i dont think there is a good political thing to follow. every1 says democracy is good but every1 hates bush. its only the people who are the government that makes the politics bad. communism is great except the people at the top are always corrupted. now if america become communistic that would be great every1 would be rich (all the rich ppl giving there money to the poor) and america would pracitically be the most powerful nation on earth cuz it would be unbelievibly rich.

No, Castro was always communist. Read, for example, The Fourth Floor by Earl E.T. Smith and Red Star Over Cuba by Nathaniel Weyl.

Damn, I got old sources. I used "The Cuban Revolution" by Robert Goldston and "Castro and the Cuban Revolution" by Thomas Leonard when doing an AP History paper comparing the American and Cuban Revolutions.

Yet the Ideal Communist Society would encircle the earth, as that only then can it be truely achieved.

"Ngo Dinh Diem and the US as an entity represent the same thing, and regardless of who first coined the term, it was used by US propaganda in full knowledge of its inaccuracy. The US attempted to promote Pol Pot as one pillar of an anti-Vietnamese alliance, which, no matter the details of material aid, in which I have limited interest here, still represents tacit support, in any reckoning."

-G.Igo.

I guess we will just give an OOC statement, because I think this is an OOC thread...

OOC:

The Great Sixth Reich hates Communism because government has control of a persons welfare, and that communists can get away with anything, such as the mass massacure of Poles during the USSR's invasion of Poland. It was just dismissed as "facist progroganda" until Russia finally relieved the truth in 1990. (One of my family trees has a dead-end, and that could be why....).

(Please do not restate the thing about violent Communists not being real Communists. I already know that, but USSR is possibly the best/biggest/largest example of Communism.)

But the real reason people hate Communism for the most part is because it is LIBERAL. Extremely liberal. The most liberal you can get.

a coup d'etat is not needed or wanted by the common man in a true communist state because no one is under the impression that there is an inbalance of power. this does not mean that there isn't a desire to have an upgrade of rights, but if there was, it would only benefit the whole nation, and all would prosper.

Damn, I got old sources. I used "The Cuban Revolution" by Robert Goldston and "Castro and the Cuban Revolution" by Thomas Leonard when doing an AP History paper comparing the American and Cuban Revolutions.

Mine were written in the early 60's. Mr. Smith, author of The Fourth Floor, was the U.S. ambassador to Cuba during the Castro revolution.

Wealth is not at all intangible in a communist society. As a citizen, you (along with everyone else in the country) constitute the government...YOU ARE THE GOVERNMENT. As such, you own everything. You simply share it with those that are less fortunate than you. I would take socio-economic egalitarianism any day over a plutocracy.
To address a point made by another person, the US has never been a democracy. That is, perhaps, one of the largest political misconceptions in the history of Earth. It is continually perpetuated by politicians and the media alike. The US is a (let's all say it together) CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC.

"Again, a really fundamental part of this whole affair must be recognised! Democracy is not some sort of contrary condition to communism. Democracy means popular rule. Communism is an economic system. It [communism] may exist in some fashion under dictatorship, representative democracy (such as the usual Western parliamentary form) or true, direct democracy (such as the Beddgelen form). In truth, systems such as the American one are not democratic even if we (wrongly) assume them to be free of corruption. They enable popular representation, not popular rule."

-CCC comrade Chivo.

"Ngo Dinh Diem and the US as an entity represent the same thing, and regardless of who first coined the term, it was used by US propaganda in full knowledge of its inaccuracy. The US attempted to promote Pol Pot as one pillar of an anti-Vietnamese alliance, which, no matter the details of material aid, in which I have limited interest here, still represents tacit support, in any reckoning."

-G.Igo.

NO! NO! NO! The term Vietcong is a slang term meaning Vietnamese Communists, a derisive one at that.

And we backed Lon Nol, not Pol Pot. Pol Pot only came to power because Lon Nol's army was full of poorly trained, poorly coordinated, and ill-motivated peasant teenagers who had no knowledge of tactics.

You really don't know your history of the Vietnam War.

I guess we will just give an OOC statement, because I think this is an OOC thread...

OOC:

The Great Sixth Reich hates Communism because government has control of a persons welfare, and that communists can get away with anything, such as the mass massacure of Poles during the USSR's invasion of Poland. It was just dismissed as "facist progroganda" until Russia finally relieved the truth in 1990. (One of my family trees has a dead-end, and that could be why....).

(Please do not restate the thing about violent Communists not being real Communists. I already know that, but USSR is possibly the best/biggest/largest example of Communism.)

But the real reason people hate Communism for the most part is because it is LIBERAL. Extremely liberal. The most liberal you can get.

Heh, yeah your family tree has a dead end because of SOVIET massacres in Poland, let's see, which country was responsible for more deaths in Poland i wonder? The USSR? or the Third Reich, for which you have so beautifully modeled your nations name after. No i would be willing to wager it is more likely that a Polish family during the final days of the war fell victim to a much more infamous murderer.

NO! NO! NO! The term Vietcong is a slang term meaning Vietnamese Communists, a derisive one at that.

And we backed Lon Nol, not Pol Pot. Pol Pot only came to power because Lon Nol's army was full of poorly trained, poorly coordinated, and ill-motivated peasant teenagers who had no knowledge of tactics.

You really don't know your history of the Vietnam War.

Exactly.

Thanks, RB.....people know nothing of history, nowadays.

Say, about Angola and the CoV......if you are not too busy.

NO! NO! NO! The term Vietcong is a slang term meaning Vietnamese Communists, a derisive one at that.

And we backed Lon Nol, not Pol Pot. Pol Pot only came to power because Lon Nol's army was full of poorly trained, poorly coordinated, and ill-motivated peasant teenagers who had no knowledge of tactics.

You really don't know your history of the Vietnam War.

(On the first point, right, I don't see why you're saying no. What did you think that Igo was trying to imply?
Secondly, for the record, even members of the Khmer Rouge insisted that they were not a communist organisation, for what that's worth. Not in practice, not in theory, not in name, not in claim, so I don't know why they're in this at all. And the US did support Pol Pot. I don't know why people are saying otherwise.)

I guess we will just give an OOC statement, because I think this is an OOC thread...

OOC:

The Great Sixth Reich hates Communism because government has control of a persons welfare, and that communists can get away with anything, such as the mass massacure of Poles during the USSR's invasion of Poland. It was just dismissed as "facist progroganda" until Russia finally relieved the truth in 1990. (One of my family trees has a dead-end, and that could be why....).

(Please do not restate the thing about violent Communists not being real Communists. I already know that, but USSR is possibly the best/biggest/largest example of Communism.)

But the real reason people hate Communism for the most part is because it is LIBERAL. Extremely liberal. The most liberal you can get.

First, I offer you my most sincere condolences for your potentially massacred family.
Second, there are many malicious misconceptions about communism. One of the greatest was illustrated (inadvertently) by you: The USSR is was communist. FALSE
The USSR was STALINIST (eponomous to that tyrant Josef Stalin). This means, they subscribed to a peremptory form of government. Communism was abused as a euphemism for their defacto dictatorship. The USSR has sullied the once immaculate name of communism.

(On the first point, right, I don't see why you're saying no. What did you think that Igo was trying to imply?
Secondly, for the record, even members of the Khmer Rouge insisted that they were not a communist organisation, for what that's worth. Not in practice, not in theory, not in name, not in claim, so I don't know why they're in this at all. And the US did support Pol Pot. I don't know why people are saying otherwise.)

Because they didn't. And yes, the Khmer Rouge were communists. Hence, the word 'rouge.' Rouge=red.

(On the first point, right, I don't see why you're saying no. What did you think that Igo was trying to imply?
Secondly, for the record, even members of the Khmer Rouge insisted that they were not a communist organisation, for what that's worth. Not in practice, not in theory, not in name, not in claim, so I don't know why they're in this at all. And the US did support Pol Pot. I don't know why people are saying otherwise.)

Firstly, emphasizing my anger at the seemingly incredible lack of control over what you were talking about.

Secondly, how did we back him? The Chinese went gaga over him when he took power, and gave him guns. I know not of the US taking the same course of action.

Communism is an excellent system on paper. But only on paper

Your right the USSR wasnt communist. Once Joseph Stalin took over communism was non existent in Russia

(Red doesn't mean communist, you know. What an odd thing to say. I was basing my assertion on the fact that members of the Khmer Rouge said, "We're not communists, we're revolutionaries, blah blah" and not on what western propaganda/lazy journalism later called them.

Xen, you're not making yourself clear at all. The no no no bit... you followed by, seemingly, asserting exactly what Igo had said in the first place, that the term Vietcong was not theirs, but applied by slanderous external elements. Seems pretty simple, and you seemed to feel the same way, but also to disagree with Igo... even though the same idea was being expressed.

The US was in favour of China's backing of Pol Pot. The US pressured the world food agency (is that the proper name I'm looking for? I forget. I think maybe world food programme) to deliver food aid to sources deemed inapropriate, and, as expected, it ended up supporting Khmer Rouge operations. The US wanted an anti-communist alliance between Pol Pot and other high profile figures in the region.

What the hell are we even arguing about, here? The core points of the Beddgelen argument were expressed mainly by CCC comrade Chivo, and they are what matter. These specifics, however sickening, don't really apply to the communist issue.)

Yeah, Marx does state that there will be violence in a revolution. Also, I beleive(correct me if I'm wrong) doesn't it state that there is a dictator from the progression from capitalism to communism (socialism)? It's also the people's job to overthrow counter-revolutionaries. It was the people's fault that communism hasn't been succesful... I'm currently read 1984 by George Orwell... deep stuff... has to do with a corrupted system- Ingsoc (this is Newspeak for you people who've read it). In the book it states something I've just realized- in all of the "revolutions" over the years, only two actual classes have changed, the High and Middle. The Low class has played in some fighting, but have'nt really gotten much benefit... sad...


Rummland

(Red doesn't mean communist, you know. What an odd thing to say. I was basing my assertion on the fact that members of the Khmer Rouge said, "We're not communists, we're revolutionaries, blah blah" and not on what western propaganda/lazy journalism later called them.

Xen, you're not making yourself clear at all. The no no no bit... you followed by, seemingly, asserting exactly what Igo had said in the first place, that the term Vietcong was not theirs, but applied by slanderous external elements. Seems pretty simple, and you seemed to feel the same way, but also to disagree with Igo... even though the same idea was being expressed.

The US was in favour of China's backing of Pol Pot. The US pressured the world food agency (is that the proper name I'm looking for? I forget. I think maybe world food programme) to deliver food aid to sources deemed inapropriate, and, as expected, it ended up supporting Khmer Rouge operations. The US wanted an anti-communist alliance between Pol Pot and other high profile figures in the region.

What the hell are we even arguing about, here? The core points of the Beddgelen argument were expressed mainly by CCC comrade Chivo, and they are what matter. These specifics, however sickening, don't really apply to the communist issue.)

Bullshit, the Khmer Rouge were and are communists. Look it up in any book you want. The facts speak for themselves.

Communism is an excellent system on paper. But only on paper

(Seriously, CCC comrade Chivo's comments. I can't bear to hear or read this tired sentiment one more time. Time was that each unrealised system seemed unworkable, unlikely, or was simply unimagined. Systems like that don't just spring up for no reason, the universe actually makes a lot of sense, damn it.)

I don't like communism because I don't want to give up the economic freedoms capitalism gives me.

Im not saying it won't work im just saying that it would be very difficult.

Capatilist pig :)

Heh, yeah your family tree has a dead end because of SOVIET massacres in Poland, let's see, which country was responsible for more deaths in Poland i wonder? The USSR? or the Third Reich, for which you have so beautifully modeled your nations name after. No i would be willing to wager it is more likely that a Polish family during the final days of the war fell victim to a much more infamous murderer.

Heh, yea."139,286 persons were boarded on cattle trains and shipped to death camps in USSR."

The deportation of whole groups of the civilian population from their place of origin to different geographic and climatic territories in which to live was, in the Soviet Union, a well tried and well known policy by which the ruling party retained power. Fictitious tales of menace from such groups to the existing system led to merciless repression upon millions of people and they even included children and old people. The Polish population on those territories overrun by the Soviet Union in September 1939, by the first months of 1940 shared the same fate as the Russian, Ukrainian and Byelorussian 'enemies of the people' who, from the early 1920's, had been dispatched to the forests of North Russia and Siberia where living conditions were beyond endurance. In many cases the deported Poles were housed in posioleks (settlements) built by these earlier deportees.

In the period from the appearance of the Red Army on Polish territories and the outbreak of war between the Soviet Union and Germany i.e. 17th September 1939 and 22 June 1941, there were four deportations of civilian populations â Polish citizens, namely: 9/10 February 1940, 12/13 April 1940, 28/29 June 1940 and the last deportation between 14 and 20 June 1941. According to estimates published up to 1990 the total number of deported civilians (not including POWs, nor people arrested, nor those recruited into the Red Army) reached somewhere between 980,000 and 1,200,000 people. This number, now that part of the deportation documents from Russian archives have been made available to the public, is presently the subject of verification. A Russian historian, Alexander Guryanov, connected with the association 'Memorial', by using the lists of railway transports involving the deported civilian population, estimates the number to be 315,000 with a margin of error of between 10,000 and 15,000. On the other hand the Committee of Army Archivists from the Polish Ministry of National Defence estimates the number deported to be about 352,000. In 1993 historians from the Historical Institute of the University of Wroclaw, provisionally reckoned the number of deportees to be about 330,000 of which 220,000 (63.6%) were Polish nationals. These numbers are undergoing further scrutiny and cannot therefore be asserted as a final figure.

The military settlers were taken away during the first deportation in the night of 9-10th February 1940. According to the first calculations made after the war some 220,000 people were taken at that time but the most recent research lowers this figure to 140,000-150,000. In the Soviet documents these February 1940 deportees are described as 'special deportees - settlers' or sometimes as 'former Polish settlers and foresters'. Similar terminology is used in Polish documents. However interpretation of the word 'settler' requires explanation because quite often in writings on the subject it is used with the addition of the word 'military' which is a misconception. In the East Borderlands, during the 1930's, there were 9,000 military settlers and a large number of civilian settlers only a small number of whom belonged to the Association of Settlers. As we have no lists of the personnel who composed the deported people, it is very difficult to establish how many of these belonged to the group of military settlers. Only an estimation is possible.

It is known, from numerous observations, as well as from the stories contained in this book, that not all the settlers families were deported to the Soviet Union because at an earlier date some of them illegally crossed the border into Polish Western territories occupied by Germany. Besides that, on the day of deportation, some family members were away from home while others managed to escape. It is possible to accept with a fair degree of probability that, at the most, 90% of the settlers i.e. 8,000-8,100 found themselves being deported, together with their families, in February 1940. Judging by the stories reported in this book it is calculated that the average family consisted of 5.5 persons and this complies with accounts gained from other sources. It is therefore possible to estimate that 44,000 - 44,600 persons originating from military settlers families were deported. That constitutes almost one third (30-32%) deported in February and 12-14% deported in 1940-41 of the civilian population - Polish citizens. This means that one in five of Polish nationals deported to the USSR - not counting POWs and prisoners - came from the families of military settlers.

The term 'settler' applied to all those deported in 1940 is very wide of the mark because it includes not only military and civilian settlers but also forest rangers and quite a number of Polish peasants who had lived in the Borderlands for decades. In the February deportation there were also those of Ukrainian and Byelorussian extraction who were likely to be forest rangers.

That February deportation, as well as the three which followed, was prepared using details supplied by the NKVD under the supervision of the Commissar of Internal Affairs, Lavrentii Beria. On 5th December 1939 the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR had already undertaken resolution number 2001-558 concerning the deportation of settlers families and those of the forestry service from the territory of the western parts of the Ukraine and Byelorussia which had been confirmed by Stalin's instructions of the 19th and 25th December. More detailed instruction on this subject was issued on 29th December. Neither of these resolutions clearly specifies the reasons for the deportation of the settlers. Professor Chackiewicz from Minsk is of the opinion that the settlers' 'guilt' was their military past and their loyalty to the 'bourgeois' Polish Government. Undoubtedly this is true but one can also add that the NKVD was apprehensive that the military settlers, the majority of whom owned firearms, would support anti-Soviet demonstrations and were also influenced by feelings of possible retaliation for the events of 1920.

Instructions described the settlers as spetzpereselentzy (special deportees) and defined that they could take only clothing, underwear, shoes, bedding, kitchen and dining utensils, one month's supply of food for all the family, small agricultural and domestic implements, personal valuables and money without limit. The total weight of luggage was not to exceed 500 kg per family. The entire farm together with its land and equipment had to be turned over to the local authority.

The act of evicting the 'settlers' in any particular district consisting of 250-300 families was supervised by a threesome of officials led by the district head of the NKVD. To help him he had the services of a large number of confidential workers like Party members, the militia and local activists. In Byelorussia there were 4,005 'threesomes' in 37 operational territorial divisions employing 16,279 people of whom 11,674 had been brought over from East Byelorussia part of the USSR. The overall supervision of the February deportation was performed by Beria's deputy, V.V. Chernyshev, aided in the Ukraine by I.A. Serov and M. Merkulov and in Byelorussia by L.F. Tsanava.

The lists of the names of the military settlers and members of their families was completed by 5th January 1940. Although those compiling the lists did not give their true reason for doing this the settlers began to suspect there existed some hidden agenda involving further arrests or maybe even deportation but they thought this would only involve the settlers themselves and, perhaps, young male adults. But, during the night of 9/10th February, when in some regions the climate dipped to -40ºC settlers families were woken by insistent knocking on their doors before which stood a member of the NKVD accompanied by militia men and, more often than not, a known local activist. After having had a decree of deportation read out to them they were ordered to pack indispensable items and food and to do this were often allowed little more than half an hour. 'Get ready with your possessions' (sobiraisya s veshchamy) ordered the Soviet official, the behaviour of whom was often over zealous. In many cases the father settler was held under the sight of a rifle barrel leaving his wife to pack their belongings while simultaneously calming her weeping children woken in the middle of the night and terrified by the situation. Equally it happened that the 'authorities' representatives helped to pack and advised the taking of a lot of food, especially warm clothing and such useful articles as a sewing machine for example. They cautioned: 'you are travelling a long way and there you won't eat honey from spoons'. Any resistance was out of the question and where it occurred it only led to the escape of no more than one person. Armed resistance was the exception. In the district of Wolkowysk on Osada Koladycze (Kaledicze) the settler Leon Wysocki offered armed resistance but was killed during the shoot-out.

The NKVD possessed detailed information on each individual member of the families. There were instances where the older children who were at schools away from the osadas were taken that same night from where they were lodging and brought to the point of transport where their families were assembled. There were also less pleasant instances when the settlers children who had been absent from home during the deportation were winkled out a few days or even weeks later and deported to different places from that of their family.

The Ukrainian or Byelorussian population's attitude towards the deportation of the settlers was very varied. The daughter of a settler from the Wilno Province remembered: 'In front of our house stood a group of locals from the nearby village, many of these had previously worked for us and they now waited to plunder our home following our departure but mother went back into the house again and after a while there came the noise of shattering glass and crockery, the smell of kerosene, which she poured over what remained of our possessions'. In his later letter, following the plans executed in Byelorussia, the local head of NKVD, Tsanava, reported that the local population had been passive in its attitude, though information from some districts indicated that the action met with their approval which was shown by the help they gave in providing local transport and by their take over of abandoned properties. Given these bases it is very difficult to form a general opinion since anxiety concerning their own fate, especially since at that time some Ukrainians and Byelorussians were among the deported, could have influenced the behaviour of the local people.

Those deported were transported to railway collecting points, sometimes at a dozen or so kilometres distance, and were then allocated to the specially brought in trains. According to the ruling of the 29th December one transport (eshelon) was to consist of 55 trucks of which one passenger coach was reserved for the escort and one for first-aid help. In each truck, bolted from the outside, were to travel 25 people but - as is shown by many reports - the number was much higher, even exceeding 50 people per coach. 'Medical care' was supposed to be provided by a medical orderly and two nurses. During the journey there was to be one hot meal and 800 grams of bread per person in every 24 hours. In reality there were days when the escorts did not open the trucks and the food supply was limited to hot water and the odd loaf of bread supplemented by a drop of soup which had to last for a few days for everyone in the truck. The stove, situated in the middle of the truck, did not give off enough heat and there were times when, during the night, women's hair froze to the sides of the truck. In these conditions people were sick, dying and even children were born. An opening in the wagon floor served as a toilet which, to keep up appearances, the deported screened with a blanket.

Though the completion of the transport was all but done in one day, for some reason, it was prolonged into the next two days. After that delay the trains moved east. The crossing of the border caused tears and the singing of patriotic and religious songs such as 'We Will Not Forsake Our Land' and 'Into Thy Care'. Meanwhile from the very onset of the deportation the regional NKVD heads sent reports of the progress of the action to their superiors who, in their turn, sent information every two to four hours to Beria.

The journey to the appointed destination lasted over three weeks. Though they tried not to show it people were physically and mentally exhausted. It is worth quoting a fragment of one story: 'The train sped along and in the evening when it stopped at some station or other the door bolts were removed and from each truck a few men with buckets went off to collect water and sometimes soup and bread. To this day I remember how our soldier fathers even in these circumstances hemmed in as they were with soldaty (Soviet guards) marched off all but dismissive of the rifle butts and sang such legionnaire songs as 'The heart rejoices, the soul rejoices, when Pilsudski's first cadre tramples on the Muscovite'. One after another the days passed by with us either still travelling or standing at the side of the railtrack'. Arrival at the last major railway station, in most cases this was Kotlas (Archangel region), did not mean the end of the journey. Depending upon the final destination further travel was by sledge, local narrow gauge railway or river coal barges, the last option of which in this desperately severe weather was particularly difficult to withstand.

In spite of the few weeks of planning the resettlement procedure was chaotic in the extreme. Included in the transport lists were people who should not have been such as the infirm and the desperately sick. Konradov, the Chairman of OTP Gulag NKVD (Special Branch NKVD supervising the deportation) in his letter to the Deputy Commissar of the Ministry of Internal Affairs (undated) gave a very long list of people who were deported without reason. Among them appears the name of a military settler from Volhynia, Companion of the Order Virtuti Militari Klemens Grzybowski, deported to NKVD Uzlag in Molotov region on whose personal questionnaire someone made this note: 'Do not deport, bound for unknown destination'.

According to the report submitted by the commissars supervising the resettlement the deportation of 10th February 1940 was made up thus:

Number of families 26,790 139,286 persons

Planned number of families (27,563) (147,957) persons

of these: from West Ukraine 17,206 89,062 persons

(17,753) (95,065) persons

from West Belorussia 9,584 50,224 persons

(9,810) (52,892) persons36

The actual number deported is slightly lower than planned because some of the families were away from home or people were sick as well as various similar reasons. When comparing the actual number with that of the plan for the February deportation one notes that 8,671 people avoided exile but a considerable number of these were deported in the following months. Different sources provide similar information. According to reports sent to Beria in April 1940 by the above mentioned Konradov, the total of deported settlers numbered 139,590 who came from 27,468 families. The document entitled 'Information concerning the special deportees listed by lands and counties' gave the 1st April 1940 total as 139,169 persons. Similar numbers to this are arrived at by considering the materials used in the military convoys according to which the number deported in February 1940 was between 140,000 and 143,037.

My name is based on the SECOND REICH, which if you actually knew what it was, would know.

Capatilist pig :)

Here, here! :D

If you hate communism it is because you dont understand it or your upper and you dont like the fact that you'll be considered the same as middle and lower calls

Bullshit, the Khmer Rouge were and are communists. Look it up in any book you want. The facts speak for themselves.

(Any book I want? All right, since you insist. "We are not communists ... we are revolutionaries who do not 'belong to the commonly accepted grouping of communist Indochina." -Ieng Sary.

More basically, Year Zero economics are contrary to any developed communist theory, which expects revolution in developed, industrialised states, and is if anything the polar opposite of a return to more primitive industry and economy as taught and practiced by Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge.

At one point the Khmer Rouge called for a reformed capitalism, again, that's not even pretend communism, is it?

At the very begining of the movement, the Cambodian communist party was certainly linked to the KR, but the KR was not communist. When it claimed to be communist, by some astonishing coincidence, it was during the period in which it was trying to court Chinese aid, and then, later, the foreign minister himself openly states that, shock horror, they're not communists. )

Bullshit, the Khmer Rouge were and are communists. Look it up in any book you want. The facts speak for themselves.

Au contraire, I've got a book for you...The Communist Manifesto !
Any system that has a dictator can't be communist, democratic process is essential. But of course you would know how to classify communism better than Karl Marx wouldn't you? Besides they didn't have an infrastructure in which the people control the means of production....the primary definition of communism!

That is correct. Besides Trotsky nobody can recognize communism better than good ol' Marx

Au contraire, I've got a book for you...The Communist Manifesto !
Any system that has a dictator can't be communist, democratic process is essential. But of course you would know how to classify communism better than Karl Marx wouldn't you? Besides they didn't have an infrastructure in which the people control the means of production....the primary definition of communism!

They called themselves communists though, and were lifelong communists (at least, they're definition of the word), contrary to what Beth said.

I would think Lenin was a pretty good commie too... same with Mao in my opinion

Even if they did call themselves communists that doesnt make them communist.

Ah Vladimir Illich Lenin my hero.

Even if they did call themselves communists that doesnt make them communist.

I didn't say it did, only that they did call themselves that and consider themselves that, contrary to what Beth said.

Im not contradicting what you said im just saying them calling themselves that doesnt mean crap

They called themselves communists though, and were lifelong communists (at least, they're definition of the word), contrary to what Beth said.

THEIR definition of the word. Who knew what the hell they meant? Doesn't matter.

(Heh. Might be time to give it up, now, comrade. They called themselves communists... contrary to what I said? When what I said was a quote by their foreign minister, stating that they were not communists. Woah. Well. There you go then.

This is a stupid, stupid argument.

Communism is an economic theory.
I believe that it will follow capitalism, but I'm not personally all that bothered.

Democracy is a political theory, and democracy has not been realised on earth in any serious fashion, never mind communism.

The core issue that must be recognised, the one about which I care far more than any economic issue, is one of democracy. Democracy is, as one of my characters said, popular rule, not popular representation.
What makes communism relatively appealing is that it sits well with direct democracy, where only representative democracy has yet been shown to sit well with capitalism. Representative democracy denies the common person direct access to the political struggle, and makes him or her a slave to the economic issue of the day, be it capitalist, communist, or something far more primitive.

Does nobody understand? This isn't me trying to take credit for anything, these are pre-existing conditions that have stuff all to do with the Khmer Rouge... I don't give a damn about the Khmer Rouge, they're a pointless tangent, like fascism. The fact is that communism is an economic issue, not a political one, and that the Khmer Rouge were neither communist in economics nor democrat in politics, and as such really fricking boring and a waste of time and lives. If you think they were communist, you're only wasting your own time, and I'm done lending you mine.)

Why do I hate communism.

1. The system is flawed, it assumes that everyone will be good, but in reality, there will always be rotten apples, sociopaths who can rally groups of people to their insane cause would be a far greater problem in communism.

2. In a communist state of being, it is basically required for everyone to agree with everything. The practice of following a religion, for example, is banned. Meanwhile, in this oh-so-evil capitalist society (of the US) we live in you are allowed to believe in basically whatever you want. The government doesn't interfere in your mind. Hell, the fact that you support communism is evidence enough of that. Under your system of choice, I would be denied my RIGHT to believe what I believe.

3. Marxist communism is violent, and talks of removing the property of the bourgeousie from them, typically in a violent manner. And personally, I don't want my property taken away from me.

4. A communist state of being is actually the best state of being for loafers. A system in which everyone is cared for no matter their contribution to society and investment in themselves (doctors receive same compensation as janitors) does not breed creativity, instead it breeds stagnation, and a race of janitors and odd-job-doers. An example of this is in the former soviet bloc states. Admittedly they weren't true communist states, but they provided food, healthcare and such for everyone. As a result, the workmanship on their goods was shoddy. They were far less productive than their western counterparts (who'd prefer a Trabant over a 1980's Volkwagon?) and they did not work to their full potential, because, frankly, they didn't have to.

5. A point I referenced above, no matter the amount of investment an individual puts into themselves (example, I am attending a university now, and am putting in time, effort and money to do. I know a guy who isn't going to school or working a job, but just skateboarding, and he's been doing so since graduation last spring. How does he deserve the same compensation that I do?

6. Another reference to post 4. People are lazy. If they can mimize the amount of work they have to do, they will. This is precisely why we invent things.

7. Marxist Communism also talks of things such as the abolition of the family. It would not allow for marriage, and the reason for having sex is very similar to what it is like in Orwell's 1984, basically to do your duty to the party by providing more workers. Children go off somewhere to be "educated" (brainwashed is my term) in the ways of communism.

Just a few of my reasons.

Indeed my definition of the word doesnt matter unless it is the exact words of wut communism is all about

(Heh. Might be time to give it up, now, comrade. They called themselves communists... contrary to what I said? When what I said was a quote by their foreign minister, stating that they were not communists. Woah. Well. There you go then.

This is a stupid, stupid argument.

Communism is an economic theory.
I believe that it will follow capitalism, but I'm not personally all that bothered.

Democracy is a political theory, and democracy has not been realised on earth in any serious fashion, never mind communism.

The core issue that must be recognised, the one about which I care far more than any economic issue, is one of democracy. Democracy is, as one of my characters said, popular rule, not popular representation.
What makes communism relatively appealing is that it sits well with direct democracy, where only representative democracy has yet been shown to sit well with capitalism. Representative democracy denies the common person direct access to the political struggle, and makes him or her a slave to the economic issue of the day, be it capitalist, communist, or something far more primitive.

Does nobody understand? This isn't me trying to take credit for anything, these are pre-existing conditions that have stuff all to do with the Khmer Rouge... I don't give a damn about the Khmer Rouge, they're a pointless tangent, like fascism. The fact is that communism is an economic issue, not a political one, and that the Khmer Rouge were neither communist in economics nor democrat in politics, and as such really fricking boring and a waste of time and lives. If you think they were communist, you're only wasting your own time, and I'm done lending you mine.)

Castro said he wasn't a communist either. Many communists pretend they're not communists, hoping to fool the West. And it works every time.

in communism your still allowed to think what you want just dont say it out loud. Look at tyhe U.S. we say whatever we want all the time. But half of what we say is stupid and shouldnt be said in the first place

But, Andaluciae, that is almost all wrong. That's like hating black people because the guy who brought them over on his cargo ship told you they ate babies, behaved like animals, and had the brain-pan of a monkey, or something. Don't hate something you've not come to understand. That doesn't mean that you have to back it until you're an expert, nor does it mean that you ever have to be an expert, it just means that hating it is totally wrong and the sort of thinking that leads to the rise of Fascism, Neo Conservatism, the Khmer Rouge, and so forth.

Personally, I don't hate Communisim. It is certainly idealistic, but so is virutally every other political system. I don't like Democracy because it ignores minorities, but representative deomcracy has many levels of Government corruption.

Everything is idealistic. I don't hate or like any political system - I personally want to improve on them all.

Yes while communism has its problems it has its good side to

How about this for a reason:
100% of the time when the government has been given that much control it has always eventually become corrupt and evil. In theory communism can work, but in reality it does not. I have the same theory about socialism, but that takes a lot longer.

Maybe if a communistic society ever had somebody good to lead them

Argh! None of you are getting it! Communism is, really, an economic theory, not a political one. You see how capitalists can be evil, right? Pinochet was a capitalist of a high order, but he was not much of a democrat, and both killed and oppressed. Lenin could be called a communist, but he wasn't much of a democrat, either, and there was killing and oppression. The current American big-shots are dilluted capitalists, but they're not much for democracy, and they both kill and oppress. The Khmer Rouge weren't capitalists or communists, and the Nazis were a little bit of both, and each of those parties were counter-democratic oppressors and killers.

Wrong-doing and dictatorship has nothing much to do with economic theory. Please, I want people to realise this. It isn't complicated, is it? It's not losing an argument, it's just recognising from where your resentment really stems.

I am not a communist, because I live in a (diluted) capitalist society. I am a capitalist. I expect some day that my society will be communist, though I do not know if I shall live to see it.

I am an advocate of democracy. I do not live an a democratic society (I live in the UK). I expect that some day my society shall be democratic. I hope that it will, regardless of whether or when it becomes communistic.

I can't speek for everyone, but I personally hate communism for the three following reasons. The first is because the only people who choose to support communism are those who use it to abbuse the people (now being an aspireing dispote my self, I'm not saying exploitation of the people is wrong, but those who lead communist countries tend to go into overkill makeing themselvs far more equal than everyone else in an "everyone is equal" system, and drive there country into the ground, which bugges the crap out of me) . The second reason is that communisum, as ideal as it may be, is a theory that workes on paper and paper alone. This is due to the fact that as a people we humans are naturally greedy and self centered, so as hard as a communist will try, there will always be something to envey, weathher it is skin tone, a smile, eyecolor, or one's physical apperance in general; and due to this natural greed and envy the whol system falls appart, and brings regret, poverty, and sorrw to all who pratice it on a large scale, whitch also gets on my nervs. Finally the last and most important reason why I hate communism is as follows. For communism to truely work, and for everyone to be truely equal, the goverment would have to bring everyone down to the lowest common denomenator in both physical and mental sences a' la Harrison Burgson. So basicly that would mean that as long as there are paraplegics in the world, everyone has to be "made" into paraplegics, or at least made to live like them, and thhat also means that as long as there are retards in the world (forgive me for not being p.c.) everyone again has to be made into tards, or to live like tards, and I for one don't want to lose my physical abilitys, or my mental strength just to be "equal,"and to make some overzeleous moron happy. That is why I hate communism. :sniper:

I'm sorry, I can't do it anymore. People aren't reading. I'm on your side (all of you, you shites!), and this, "...on paper..." argument is back again even though its paper-thin base has been obliterated. Please, when I'm gone, just try to understand for yourselves. Economy and politics are two different (though obviously linked) causes/struggles/entities/concepts. Capitalism does not equal democracy, and at the same time, nor does communism. Democracy as you've grown up with it is not true democracy. These are the central truths against which you can argue until I've been dead a thousand years, but never will they be eroded.

I have to go, because I can't take the depressing self-defeating condition of the species any longer. I hope to God (well, not really, I'm agnostic) that people are, deep down, on the same side, and that they believe in pure democracy above all else, and can eventually recognise that it has nothing to do with capitalism or communism.

Thanks to anyone who's paid any attention. I'm going back to RP. And beer. Also beer.

Why do I hate communism.

1. The system is flawed, it assumes that everyone will be good, but in reality, there will always be rotten apples, sociopaths who can rally groups of people to their insane cause would be a far greater problem in communism.

2. In a communist state of being, it is basically required for everyone to agree with everything. The practice of following a religion, for example, is banned. Meanwhile, in this oh-so-evil capitalist society (of the US) we live in you are allowed to believe in basically whatever you want. The government doesn't interfere in your mind. Hell, the fact that you support communism is evidence enough of that. Under your system of choice, I would be denied my RIGHT to believe what I believe.

3. Marxist communism is violent, and talks of removing the property of the bourgeousie from them, typically in a violent manner. And personally, I don't want my property taken away from me.

4. A communist state of being is actually the best state of being for loafers. A system in which everyone is cared for no matter their contribution to society and investment in themselves (doctors receive same compensation as janitors) does not breed creativity, instead it breeds stagnation, and a race of janitors and odd-job-doers. An example of this is in the former soviet bloc states. Admittedly they weren't true communist states, but they provided food, healthcare and such for everyone. As a result, the workmanship on their goods was shoddy. They were far less productive than their western counterparts (who'd prefer a Trabant over a 1980's Volkwagon?) and they did not work to their full potential, because, frankly, they didn't have to.

5. A point I referenced above, no matter the amount of investment an individual puts into themselves (example, I am attending a university now, and am putting in time, effort and money to do. I know a guy who isn't going to school or working a job, but just skateboarding, and he's been doing so since graduation last spring. How does he deserve the same compensation that I do?

6. Another reference to post 4. People are lazy. If they can mimize the amount of work they have to do, they will. This is precisely why we invent things.

7. Marxist Communism also talks of things such as the abolition of the family. It would not allow for marriage, and the reason for having sex is very similar to what it is like in Orwell's 1984, basically to do your duty to the party by providing more workers. Children go off somewhere to be "educated" (brainwashed is my term) in the ways of communism.

Just a few of my reasons.

I am going to respond to your logical disagreement with communism in the same order you have presented.

1. I'm afraid you contradict yourself, comrade. You state (throughout your post) that communism prevents freedom of expression. However, you also believe that anti-government, or radical, maniacs will have more power in a communist society. Pray tell how? Wouldn't the evil, conniving, god-hating communists you speak of kill these lunatics in the dead of night?

2. Communism encourages unilateral accord, but it is not mandated. No one can ever force millions of people to agree with everything all the time, it is not feasible under any idealogy. Communism favors state sponsored atheism because religious institutions present a form of "classism." Organizations such as the catholic church often request tithes, and have an abundance of wealth. All of these practices are diametrical to the intentions of communism. Even FAKE COMMUNISTS like China only have a 46% atheist rate among their populace. Communism is entirely based on freedom. It is the pinnacle of liberalism, people are allowed to exercise their freedom of speech and practice whatever they feel is right. There are far too many misconceptions about communism. The United States doesn't allow you to believe in whatever you want. Could you openly join Al Qaeda? I should say not. In fact, the fascists in DC have commisioned atrocities such as the Patriot Act (a bill that undermines the bill of rights).

3. You are absolutely right on this one, Marxist communism IS violent. However, you have to look at this from a historical standpoint. The European Monarchs were sadists, people were starving to death, the Chrimean wars were occuring...not a happy time. As such, violence was the only fathomable manner in which political reform could be instituted. In fact, the Bible speaks of "stoning wenches" we would find this primitive today, wouldn't we?
As far as property seizures are concerned, Marx suggests an eradication of classes. You aren't going to be equal to someone else if you have a Rolex and a Ferari, are you? I think that society would be better off if people learned to appreciate human life over material goods..then again I'm not a capitalist.

4. Are you suggesting that only certain people should be allowed to eat and receive medical attention? If so, this entire entry is pyrrhic. As human beings, and denizens of this earth, it is our responsibility to care for those that are less fortunate than we are. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a doctor receiving the same amount of money as a janitor. Certain people have abilities that other people don't have. A janitor can work just as well in his/her field as a doctor does in his/hers. People weren't inefficient because they didn't have to be, they were inefficient because they were being massacred incessantly by their mountebank government. Why don't we just threaten every worker in the US with execution if they don't perform well? Because it is barbaric and selfcentered.

5. The government would place him in a labor program. Otherwise, no one would do anything and society would collapse.

6. This point is covered in previous responses.

7. What the hell are you talking about? Are we discussing the same Karl Marx? He himself was married! Do yourself a favor, pick up a copy of "The Communist Manifesto" by Marx and Engels. This animadversion you've cultivated towards communism is ill-founded, you watch too many movies.

I'm sorry, I can't do it anymore. People aren't reading. I'm on your side (all of you, you shites!), and this, "...on paper..." argument is back again even though its paper-thin base has been obliterated. Please, when I'm gone, just try to understand for yourselves. Economy and politics are two different (though obviously linked) causes/struggles/entities/concepts. Capitalism does not equal democracy, and at the same time, nor does communism. Democracy as you've grown up with it is not true democracy. These are the central truths against which you can argue until I've been dead a thousand years, but never will they be eroded.

I have to go, because I can't take the depressing self-defeating condition of the species any longer. I hope to God (well, not really, I'm agnostic) that people are, deep down, on the same side, and that they believe in pure democracy above all else, and can eventually recognise that it has nothing to do with capitalism or communism.

Thanks to anyone who's paid any attention. I'm going back to RP. And beer. Also beer.

I know this feeling. People really need to wake up and realise what you've said.

OOC:

This is an IC Board: International Incidents.

If you want to agrue about Communism, go to "General".

If you want to debate SPECIFICALLY about a nation's Communism, keep this thread here.

Remember that RL countries DO NOT exist on NS.

think about Communism for a minute, it's a bad Government. see Vladimer Lenin? see Stalin? see Mao whatever his name is? they are all Communists and are in the expansionism area where they want more land(though some commies are pretty good) others like Stalin are bad.

I'm no where near slipping into Communism, for every Communist Nation I have seen has either been ruthlessly attacked by Rebels or it's econamy fallen. though I will admit I like the flag.

But none of those people exist in NS...

I have noticed a lot of hatred towards communists lately. Being a communist nation, I want to know why other nations hate communism.
Communism is a system of government in which people are entirely represented, classes (poor-middle-rich) are non-existent, pacifism is encouraged, education and health care are free for everyone, and freedom is valued. Why would anyone hate that system?


Communism is a system where the old rich (usually landed elite) is replaced by a new rich (The Communist upper-echelon party elite)


Wealth gets distributed evenly, evenly amongst the top party elite.

I agree with Risban, it is good on paper, but blows in real life. Humans naturally, in my experience, don't really want to be forced to share, competition in the long run works better, because it motivates people to actually one-up their competitors, and produce goods of quality, and anyway, isn't private property a human right?

This is more of a General Forums topic, really....


My right to private property is worth infinitely more to me than the rights of slackers and welfare parasites to sit on their dead butts and milk the system. I'd rather the government spend money to boost the economy, make jobs, and help those without jobs that want jobs, get a job, rather than wasting money on those who refuse to work. (I know some people, white and black, who bragged about being on welfare! Trash is just rash, and the gov't needs to stop subsidizing the breeding of trash)


Private property is more important than feel-good social programs which just keep people dependent on big gov't, and thus compliant to the actions of big gov't. That is welfare is about, the gov't becomes mom and dad, and the welfare recipient is the dependent child who needs to do as he is told or else suddenly the welfare can be gone. Thus a dictatorial regime is must secure from internal threats if all the populace is made dependent on it.


Private property is more important than the right of others to have their "equal share" of my wealth. I want to keep at least 90-95% of what I earn, I honestly don't care if somebody won't or can't (well I care somewhat if they want to, but can't) earn enough to support themselves, they just need a lifestyle change, stop living high on the hog and live within your means. You know what I mean?

If somebody wants a job, but can't get one, we (society) have a problem that we (society+gov't) need to solve.

If somebody doesn't want a job, but could easily get one, the problem is entirely theirs and the solution can only come from themselves.

I have noticed a lot of hatred towards communists lately. Being a communist nation, I want to know why other nations hate communism.
Communism is a system of government in which people are entirely represented, classes (poor-middle-rich) are non-existent, pacifism is encouraged, education and health care are free for everyone, and freedom is valued. Why would anyone hate that system?



Communism is a system of government under which, in numerous nations, from Russia, to Vietnam, to China, to Cuba, over 100-200 million people in the last 90 years, were murdered, massacred, and butchered. That is why people don't like it.


Communism is a system of government that like the Bush post-war plan for Iraq, only looks possible on paper. (Although I personally don't even think Bush had a good paper plan for post-war Iraq) indeed some top white house officials, including VP Dick Cheney, said things such as, "This will be a cake-walk", "They'll greet us with flowers", "I'd be surprised if they don't have statues of President Bush in a year, in Baghdad."

But again, none of these people even exist in NS,

But again, none of these people even exist in NS,



I thought this was a misplaced thread meant for general that just didn't get moved. But anyway, communism is still just as awful in NS as in RL. The NS communists attempt to topple non-Communist regimes, they attempt to force all people to be equal, when people aren't equal in physical beauty, intelligence, social standing, ability, talents, ethical values, etc. We are all unique individuals, superior and inferior to others in some regards. We each specialize in things that make us who we are. Communism just wants to make us all interchangeable carbon copies of one another.

Shouldn't this thread be in the general forums. This is not an RP thread, but more of a discussion. I mean, it isn't even an incident, and this is the International Incidents forum.

If the world was divided into small sections and each had its independent True communist goverment, it would work. But since no nations are, it's impossible for True Communism to grow.

I have noticed a lot of hatred towards communists lately. Being a communist nation, I want to know why other nations hate communism.
Communism is a system of government in which people are entirely represented, classes (poor-middle-rich) are non-existent, pacifism is encouraged, education and health care are free for everyone, and freedom is valued. Why would anyone hate that system?

Because that is your utopian ideal of communism. In reality, there is no adequate or reasonable way of providing all such things for everyone. And the processes that lend themselves to such a government have proven to be easily manipulated by a few.

Also, the original tenants of the communist manifesto are inaccurate. Marx and Engels believed that altruism was a definitive trait in nature, Behavioral Ecology tells us it is not. The economic principle upon which Marx and Engels based on comunism came from Malthus. An economist whose ideas of scarcity on which communism rests have been disproven since he failed to consider such important variables as technology. So, if communism continues to root itself in the manifesto, it is only looks good on pper because it is tantamount to fantasy.

Damn capitalists and communists, you both have it wrong:

It is my contention that "militant communists" (as you call them) are not communists at all. In The Communist Manifesto (Marx/engels) violence is only justified in the event of a revolution (in which power is seized from the bourgeois). Those nations that not only abuse their populace, but war-monger are simply de-facto dictatorships that bastardize the integrity of a decent system. Communism is not supposed to have a dictatorship. True communism is comprised of entirely democratic elections. Leon Trotsky once said:"Democracy is to socialism what air is to the human body."

*sigh*

Communism does call for dictatorship – as seen in the Communist Manifesto where it explicitly calls for a Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Trotsky, whom you quote, used totalitarian means in every office he held. He, as the Soviet War Commissar, was the guy who came up with the idea of setting up machineguns behind troops so those who retreat before being ordered to were shot. This did lead to victory in the civil war; but, can you really call it victory when it is achieved in such a way? He later attempted to apply such methods to the economy – Lenin opposed him and he later gave way. Later on Stalin applied the principles Trotsky called for. Trotsky was a hypocrite.

Not only that, but you quote ****ing Trotsky and then go on to speak against the ideal of permanent revolution when you say “Those nations that not only abuse their populace, but war-monger are simply de-facto dictatorships that bastardize the integrity of a decent system.” – Permanent Revolution, as you know, is one of the most important elements of Trotsky’s interpretation of communism.

Also, there is no “true” communism. Communism existed centuries prior to Marx. To identify any version of it as “true” is ludicrous.

Finally, the moral basis of Marxist theory is the wage-labor theory. This theory was proven incorrect prior to WW2. This goes along with the entire fact that completely state-run economies don’t work – such a system makes pricing goods impossible. Communism can only be accomplished through a heavily-taxed capitalist economy.

anyway, isn't private property a human right?

Would you suffer (mentally or physically) if you lacked private property? No, you wouldn’t; because of this it isn’t an inherent right.

To reiterate, communism can only exist if the people are free and there is no dictatorship. It is that simple. China, USSR, Cuba, Vietnam, etc...all fake communists.

Communism only allows for a select few to be free – the proletariat (and only the class-conscious proletariat, mind you, the lumpenproletariat don’t qualify, etc. Communism calls for an elite vanguard, as Lenin showed and Trotsky eventually agreed with)


As far as why I hate Communism – read Nietzsche for a good starting point (Beyond Good And Evil & Thus Spake Zarathustra are both available for free from Project Gutenerg.) To be brief: Communists (and many other political movements) tend to be deathly afraid of the esoteric and it’s implications. As such, they prefer the exoteric – the crowd morality (the herd!). Those Communists who become “bloody” (those who accept Lenin’s theory of a revolutionary vanguard, or a similar theory, such as Marxism’s dictatorship of the proletariat) actually have converted to the esoteric. They become convinced of their superiority over the masses and believe they need to lead the masses (as the masses don’t know what’s good for themselves).

Note how most communists think the public would be all for communism if only they knew about it, if only cruel disinformation would stop being spread, etc. They think of themselves as saviors.

And the US did support Pol Pot. I don't know why people are saying otherwise.

Give us sources.

If you hate communism it is because you dont understand it or your upper and you dont like the fact that you'll be considered the same as middle and lower calls

What a brilliant argument that entirely rests upon the laurels of leftist rhetoric!

But of course you would know how to classify communism better than Karl Marx wouldn't you?

As I stated above, Marx did not invent Communism. He did nothing of the sort. Communism existed CENTURIES before Marx. You mean MARXISM. Read more socialist literature, damnit!

2. In a communist state of being, it is basically required for everyone to agree with everything. The practice of following a religion, for example, is banned. Meanwhile, in this oh-so-evil capitalist society (of the US) we live in you are allowed to believe in basically whatever you want. The government doesn't interfere in your mind. Hell, the fact that you support communism is evidence enough of that. Under your system of choice, I would be denied my RIGHT to believe what I believe.

What is the point of freedom if those who say 2 + 2 = 3 reign and saying 2 + 2 = 4 results in being socially ostracized and other problems? Yes, our system does allow for this to change but it is thoroughly impossible. “Soft” tyranny is just as horrible to live under as “hard” tyranny – Henry David Thoreau said something to the effect of: “It is bad to have a southern master, it is worse to have a northern master.” We live under a cruel northern master whose soft tyranny is destroying culture and is set up in such a way that it actively works to emotionally cripple people.


Communism is a system of government under which, in numerous nations, from Russia, to Vietnam, to China, to Cuba, over 100-200 million people in the last 90 years, were murdered, massacred, and butchered. That is why people don't like it.

And what about all the massacres associated with capitalism – such as sweatshops, child labor, and capitalist nations trading with nations like Cuba, China, and North Korea that allows such cruel regimes to not only survive but (in some situations) thrive.

Finally the last and most important reason why I hate communism is as follows. For communism to truely work, and for everyone to be truely equal, the goverment would have to bring everyone down to the lowest common denomenator in both physical and mental sences a' la Harrison Burgson. So basicly that would mean that as long as there are paraplegics in the world, everyone has to be "made" into paraplegics, or at least made to live like them, and thhat also means that as long as there are retards in the world (forgive me for not being p.c.) everyone again has to be made into tards, or to live like tards, and I for one don't want to lose my physical abilitys, or my mental strength just to be "equal,"and to make some overzeleous moron happy. That is why I hate communism.

Yes, but do you also realize that the same thing happens through the soft tyranny that is inevitable in capitalism and democracy?

Communism is a system where the old rich (usually landed elite) is replaced by a new rich (The Communist upper-echelon party elite)

Wealth gets distributed evenly, evenly amongst the top party elite.

That is partly true of the bureaucratic Stalinist regimes whch claimed to be Communist but it is far from the aims of Communism set out by Karl Marx. Communism aims to create a democratic classless society where the state will eventually wither away and eveyone will be completely equal.

My right to private property is worth infinitely more to me than the rights of slackers and welfare parasites to sit on their dead butts and milk the system. I'd rather the government spend money to boost the economy, make jobs, and help those without jobs that want jobs, get a job, rather than wasting money on those who refuse to work. (I know some people, white and black, who bragged about being on welfare! Trash is just rash, and the gov't needs to stop subsidizing the breeding of trash)

People who are on welfare are not lazy and would be happy to get a well paid job. The creation of jobs is important but this is not possible in a capitalist society as the fat cat business owners will only employ people to increase their profits. In a socialist society everyone is provided with a job and is required to work for the benefit of society and in return are given everything required to enjoy a high standard of living and an equal share of the wealth created.

Communism is a system of government under which, in numerous nations, from Russia, to Vietnam, to China, to Cuba, over 100-200 million people in the last 90 years, were murdered, massacred, and butchered. That is why people don't like it.

It is a complete exaggeration to say that 100 million people were murdered in the name of Communism, that is an absurd figure and there is no evidence to suggest it apart from fascist propaganda and lies. While it is true that millions were killed by people claiming to be Communists, this is a tiny fraction of those killed by capitalism throughout history. Every year capitalism is responsible for many millions of deaths particularly due to the capitalist exploitation of third world which results in easily preventable starvation and disease.

All I've seen in this thread is a mindless reiteration of these concepts: communism is/isn't murderous, the USSR was/wasn't communist, etc...

Ok, the USSR, China, Cuba, and all of the either allegedly communist states are STALINIST. This has been stated by myself, as well as several other members, multiple times already. Communism is idealogically great, people aren't murdered in masses.

Stalinism doesn't seem to work too well. Does it?

Because that is your utopian ideal of communism. In reality, there is no adequate or reasonable way of providing all such things for everyone. And the processes that lend themselves to such a government have proven to be easily manipulated by a few.

Also, the original tenants of the communist manifesto are inaccurate. Marx and Engels believed that altruism was a definitive trait in nature, Behavioral Ecology tells us it is not. The economic principle upon which Marx and Engels based on comunism came from Malthus. An economist whose ideas of scarcity on which communism rests have been disproven since he failed to consider such important variables as technology. So, if communism continues to root itself in the manifesto, it is only looks good on pper because it is tantamount to fantasy.

My viewpoint has been well-founded at this point. Instead of arguing I am going to refer you to a website:

www.socialistappeal.org

Stalinism doesn't seem to work too well. Does it?

No it doesn't. Stalinism is a system in which the governing body feigns communism (using it entirely as a euphemism for evil dictatorship) and bastardizes the integrity of communism in its true form. This is going to present enormous political repercussions in the future.

My viewpoint has been well-founded at this point. Instead of arguing I am going to refer you to a website:

www.socialistappeal.org

Are we talking about socialism? What's the question? America has some degree of socialism, as do Canada, England and Australia. Capitalism appears to be working well, though, as far as providing a standard of living for people. Even the poor people in America are better off than the masses in some third world nations. Cuba's a great example of how socialism or communism does not help the masses.

If you are talking about greed versus altruism, my vote is for altruism. Give without measure. Love without conditions.

Ima just see what y'all think about this little comparison of goverments with COWS.

Socialism:
You have two cows. the government has you milk them, then gives you a fair share of the milk, along with meat and bread.
_________________________________________
Communism, Marxist kind:
You have two cows. you give one to your neighbor.

Stalin kind:
You have two cows. the government takes them, gives you a little milk, and kills you when you complain.
_________________________________________
Capitalism, the good version:
You have two cows. you sell one, buy a bull, and make more cows.

the bad version:
You have two cows. you sell one, buy a bull, make more cows, beat out other cow farmers, become rich, control a small portion of the entire economy, stomp on the homeless and poor with a giant corporate boot.
_________________________________________
Feudalism:
You have two cows. you keep 1/4th of the milk, your master takes 1/10th from all the cow farmers, his master takes 1/10th of al the milk in his reigon, and his master... so on and so forth.

_________________________________________
The Swiss way:
you have 8,000,000,000,000 cows. but none of them are yours. but your holding them for an undisclosed person whom you have never met and are collecting interest on the cows.

_________________________________________
The
You have

Communism creates, at best (and it's damn optimistic to think that this could really happen), a race to the middle... where everyone tries to be dead center on the bell-curve... because nobody wants to produce just to have it taken away, but, ideally, everyone wants to justify their survival with their own work. This is the communist ideal: for everyone to be just a faceless cog in the machine. Inevitably, though, it starts going wrong when people start the race to the bottom of the bell-curve, because they want to be able to get what others produce by virtue of the fact that they aren't producing it, and to hell with justifying their existence. And so, of course, this just results in a downward shift of the curve. Everyone has to lower their production to get back to the middle... and the bottom-feeders start getting less from the producers, so they sink even lower... eventually, it leads to a state where the top producers are hardly producing, and then having the majority of it taken from them... pure economic collapse. THIS is why I hate Communism. Because IT DOESN'T WORK! Even the purest ideals of Communism are predicated on the fact that for some inexplicable reason, everyone will try their hardest to produce as much as they can, for the benefit of "society." And this assumption is, as has been proven, simply absurd.

Whether or not you believe a Communist government has ever been fully implemented, those that have attempted it have FAILED MISERABLY. Never has Communism, Marxism, Stalinism, whatever, actually prospered. And Capitalism... well, that's never been fully implemented either... but realize that every case in which it HAS been even PARTIALLY implemented, it results in the highest overall standards of living.

There are 3 possible ways to succeed in life: try to be the best at what you do, destroy everyone better at it, or leech off of (read: steal from) those who are better at it. These define, respectively, Capitalism, Fascism, and Communism. And, taken on this individual scale... which option looks the most appealing?

Are we talking about socialism? What's the question? America has some degree of socialism, as do Canada, England and Australia. Capitalism appears to be working well, though, as far as providing a standard of living for people. Even the poor people in America are better off than the masses in some third world nations. Cuba's a great example of how socialism or communism does not help the masses.

Socialism is often used as a euphemism for communism. In "the communist manifesto" marx/engels used communism and socialism interchangeably. However, certain people subscribe to socialism representing the proletariat control of the means of production. Whereas, communism represents a system in which everyone controls the means of production. For the sake of this argument, please conform to my first statement.

America has such an infinitesimal degree of socialism it is ridiculous. The only traces of socialism that exist in america are: the new deal (passe), social security, and welfare (incessantly reformed, much to the detriment of the needy).

Cuba is not, and never was, a communist/socialist state. Cuba is the epitomization of Stalinism. As a result of this factual flaw in your argument, I can see how you reached your conclusion. Authentic communism, however, does help the masses. When you institute a system in which everyone is exceptionally represented, and no one starves, you have a perfect system. Communism aids the downtrodden by providing housing, food, education, clothing, and medical attention.

Socialism is often used as a euphemism for communism. In "the communist manifesto" marx/engels used communism and socialism interchangeably. However, certain people subscribe to socialism representing the proletariat control of the means of production. Whereas, communism represents a system in which everyone controls the means of production. For the sake of this argument, please conform to my first statement.

America has such an infinitesimal degree of socialism it is ridiculous. The only traces of socialism that exist in america are: the new deal (passe), social security, and welfare (incessantly reformed, much to the detriment of the needy).

Cuba is not, and never was, a communist/socialist state. Cuba is the epitomization of Stalinism. As a result of this factual flaw in your argument, I can see how you reached your conclusion. Authentic communism, however, does help the masses. When you institute a system in which everyone is exceptionally represented, and no one starves, you have a perfect system. Communism aids the downtrodden by providing housing, food, education, clothing, and medical attention.

Stalinism is communism, yes not in the pure form but because it can never function that way because its run by people, who suprise are interested in themselfs, much like capitalism.

It is a complete exaggeration to say that 100 million people were murdered in the name of Communism, that is an absurd figure and there is no evidence to suggest it apart from fascist propaganda and lies. While it is true that millions were killed by people claiming to be Communists, this is a tiny fraction of those killed by capitalism throughout history. Every year capitalism is responsible for many millions of deaths particularly due to the capitalist exploitation of third world which results in easily preventable starvation and disease.



20 million in the USSR, at least 50 million in China, 2-3 million in Cambodia, several million in Vietnam, at least 10-20 million across Africa from the 60s to today. Communism claims lives in untold numbers.

communist ideals are ok in my eyes

People who are on welfare are not lazy and would be happy to get a well paid job. The creation of jobs is important but this is not possible in a capitalist society as the fat cat business owners will only employ people to increase their profits. In a socialist society everyone is provided with a job and is required to work for the benefit of society and in return are given everything required to enjoy a high standard of living and an equal share of the wealth created.



I don't want an equal share, I want the share I earn. If I'm a doctor and work for sixty hours a week doing surgery, why should I get the same as a man who flips burgers for eight hours a day from monday to friday?


I want the share I earn, not what some so-called marxist intellectual deems my "Equal share".

Basically, if you want people to keep being doctors, lawyers, businessmen, economists, etc, you need to realize since they spent many years (And often hundreds of thousands of dollars) going to college and getting educated, and they work so hard, they need to make more to makeup for the years of lost earning potential that they suffered from being in college, etc. And not to mention the big bucks they spent to get educated.

Also, people in those sort of jobs deserve more, a doctor is of more value to society than a retail store clerk.

I don't want an equal share, I want the share I earn. If I'm a doctor and work for sixty hours a week doing surgery, why should I get the same as a man who flips burgers for eight hours a day from monday to friday?


I want the share I earn, not what some so-called marxist intellectual deems my "Equal share".

Basically, if you want people to keep being doctors, lawyers, businessmen, economists, etc, you need to realize since they spent many years (And often hundreds of thousands of dollars) going to college and getting educated, and they work so hard, they need to make more to makeup for the years of lost earning potential that they suffered from being in college, etc. And not to mention the big bucks they spent to get educated.

Also, people in those sort of jobs deserve more, a doctor is of more value to society than a retail store clerk.

but do they deserve to get a pay as shitty as they do?

20 million in the USSR, at least 50 million in China, 2-3 million in Cambodia, several million in Vietnam, at least 10-20 million across Africa from the 60s to today. Communism claims lives in untold numbers.
see i dont see the problem there?
capitalism kills far more people but few bitch about that

but do they deserve to get a pay as shitty as they do?


We went over this in a class once, my professor (economics) said, "Are you personally willing to pay them more?"

He brought up the example of the coffee bean growers in Central and Southern America, they get paid pennies basically, and so Star Bucks started a program, you can get a cup of coffee for regular price, and it's from basically penny labor farmers, or you can get a cup of coffee for 50% more, and it's guaranteed to go to the farmers, who get it all. The beans are the same, the fields were practically next to each other one some farms, or the farms were at least nearby each other, it was identical in every way and shape to the other coffee..

After a few months, they pulled the 50% more coffee, it didn't sell.


People talk with their wallets, obviously paying Colombian bean growers more money isn't top on most peoples priority list.


When Americans complained textiles was being outsourced, but kept buying foreign clothing, how can we complain?


When Wal-mart drives all the ma and pa stores out of business (actually it's consumers that stop going to the ma and pa stores, that do it) who is to blame?


Society decides what will occur economically, not some small pressure group (communists) that think they know what is best.

see i dont see the problem there?
capitalism kills far more people but few bitch about that


People are expected to die of starvation and disease, it's natural, communist genocides aren't.


When there is starvation in Ethiopia, it is natures way of telling the people, "You have too many people here for the ecosystem to support, either have less kids, become efficient in food production, or die."

When we just give them food, we enable them to keep breeding, thus making the population problem worse, the second we stop sending them tons upon tons of food, it'll be chaos.

people are expected to die of disease!?!?!
diseases that are treatable or curable?!?!
millions die in third world countries every year from diseases that almost no one dies from in the united states
aids and malaria could possibly be cured in a few short years with the kind of funding that the defense department received during the cold war
far more people would be saved in one or two years than any number of people who "died under communism" if capitalists wished for it to be

people are expected to die of disease!?!?!
diseases that are treatable or curable?!?!
millions die in third world countries every year from diseases that almost no one dies from in the united states
aids and malaria could possibly be cured in a few short years with the kind of funding that the defense department received during the cold war
far more people would be saved in one or two years than any number of people who "died under communism" if capitalists wished for it to be



It's not my job to care about the thirld world, I live in the USA, not some Global UN state where we're all equally poor.

If Africa was still under European rule, I believe that civil war, disease, famine, etc, wouldn't exist, at least not nearly as bad as it is today.

Anyway, Africa insisted on "Standing on their own" and "Kicking the whites out" (in most all former colonies we see this, from Zimbabwe to Ivory Coast)


I say "Good, let them stand on their own."

And so we should.

It's not my job to care about the thirld world, I live in the USA, not some Global UN state where we're all equally poor.

If Africa was still under European rule, I believe that civil war, disease, famine, etc, wouldn't exist, at least not nearly as bad as it is today.

Anyway, Africa insisted on "Standing on their own" and "Kicking the whites out" (in most all former colonies we see this, from Zimbabwe to Ivory Coast)


I say "Good, let them stand on their own."

And so we should.
jesus help us all...
so pretty much you, as a capitalist, are willing to allow people to die, and willing to buy products that other capitalists produce while exploiting and letting die other people?
i dont see how you're any better than stalin other than you're not ordering these people to die yourself

people are expected to die of disease!?!?!
diseases that are treatable or curable?!?!
millions die in third world countries every year from diseases that almost no one dies from in the united states
aids and malaria could possibly be cured in a few short years with the kind of funding that the defense department received during the cold war
far more people would be saved in one or two years than any number of people who "died under communism" if capitalists wished for it to be



Without all that defense spending, we'd be the USSA right now, rather than the USA, and the NWO would have taken overt control, long ago...

America needs a large armed forces, at least 30% of our budget should be for defense, our army should be at least 10,000,000 strong. We don't need welfare and social security if having them means we compromise our national sovereignty to a UN state, and if funding it means we cut our defenses down to nothing.

Without all that defense spending, we'd be the USSA right now, rather than the USA, and the NWO would have taken overt control, long ago...

America needs a large armed forces, at least 30% of our budget should be for defense, our army should be at least 10,000,000 strong. We don't need welfare and social security if having them means we compromise our national sovereignty to a UN state, and if funding it means we cut our defenses down to nothing.
so...you're saying that somehow the soviet union would have invaded with their huge armies while magically dodging our nuclear missiles...
our current defense spending is greater than the next 19 countries combined...
just wondering, you christian?
people like you are why the world hates us
people like you are why the us is gonna get screwed not too far into the future

so...you're saying that somehow the soviet union would have invaded with their huge armies while magically dodging our nuclear missiles...
our current defense spending is greater than the next 19 countries combined...
just wondering, you christian?
people like you are why the world hates us
people like you are why the us is gonna get screwed not too far into the future


I am a Christian, and I don't see any reason to help the third world (mostly just people who are either non-Christians or Christians who are descended from those who were forced to convert by misguided Europeans centuries ago, and thus a forced conversion is not a real one, they're not our spiritual brothers)

Anyway, I don't want to share the USA's resources with an undeserving world, so I'm why the world hates us?

So if you don't want to share your wife with your neighbor, it's your fault he hates you.


Share your TV with a crook or else he might hate you!

I am a Christian, and I don't see any reason to help the third world (mostly just people who are either non-Christians or Christians who are descended from those who were forced to convert by misguided Europeans centuries ago, and thus a forced conversion is not a real one, they're not our spiritual brothers)

Wait, since they aren't Christian, the aren'tworth helping?
Then shoot me now.

Anyway, I don't want to share the USA's resources with an undeserving world, so I'm why the world hates us?

What makes us so much more deserving than everybody else?
And I daresay that the US is dislike for this reason exactly.

So if you don't want to share your wife with your neighbor, it's your fault he hates you.

Red herring.

Share your TV with a crook or else he might hate you!

Red herring.

I am a Christian, and I don't see any reason to help the third world (mostly just people who are either non-Christians or Christians who are descended from those who were forced to convert by misguided Europeans centuries ago, and thus a forced conversion is not a real one, they're not our spiritual brothers)

Anyway, I don't want to share the USA's resources with an undeserving world, so I'm why the world hates us?

So if you don't want to share your wife with your neighbor, it's your fault he hates you.


Share your TV with a crook or else he might hate you!
clearly you have no wish to attempt to convert these people into the ways of the lord
jesus would not approve of your unwillingness to help out your brothers, for they are your brothers, created by God, whether they know it or not
in the book of acts, it is said that "no one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had. ...there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owened lands or houses sold them, borought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had needed"
did jesus ever leave hungry a man who wanted bread?

clearly you have no wish to attempt to convert these people into the ways of the lord
jesus would not approve of your unwillingness to help out your brothers, for they are your brothers, created by God, whether they know it or not
in the book of acts, it is said that "no one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had. ...there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owened lands or houses sold them, borought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had needed"
did jesus ever leave hungry a man who wanted bread?


Christianity wasn't meant to spread outside of certain areas (Mainly meant for Europe)

Christ told Paul not to carry the faith east and through Persia, India, and into China, he specifically said not to do it. And so Paul listened and didn't do it.


I am more concerned about getting existing Christians to behave as good Christians should, than just getting more numbers to the faith. Quality before quantity.

Christ told Paul not to carry the faith east and through Persia, India, and into China, he specifically said not to do it. And so Paul listened and didn't do it.

where?
Christianity wasn't meant to spread outside of certain areas (Mainly meant for Europe)
...
as i said, jesus does not leave a hungry man unfed

Decisive Action
....are you mental?

I dont like communism because it doesn't work with realpolotik.

Why dont people like communism? Two words: Soviet Union

Look at the Sandinistas. Look at the Vietcong. Look at the National Liberation Front (Ben Bella's group), ZANU, FRELIMO, the 26th of July Movement, the Bolsheviks, the Chinese communists, the Khmer Rouge, the Pathet Lao, etc. That is why I hate communism.

Well, as people have said, many of these people are fake communists. But in defense of some.... the Vietcong had popular support and the Sandinistas were fighting for democracy first and socialism second....

The sandinistas weren't dictators at all, they were VOTED out of power.... and they are still a political party in Nicaragua today.

In fact, almost all of those groups you mentioned were OVERTHROWING other dictatorships.

Communism looks like shit on paper too. It is a total fantasy that ignores the basic facts of human nature, as well as all of nature. Competition defines the evolution of species, and their daily existence in their various ecosystems. Capitalism is the closest economic system to nature. Those who are best able to exploit niches achieve advantage, when the niche ceases to be because of changes in circumstance, adaptability will win the day.

Communism assumes (when you assume, you make an ASS out of U & ME) perfect knowledge on the part of the ruling class (and it ain't "the people," it is The Party) in the central planning office, as well as perfect intent. Since we know people to be incapable of perfect knowledge of all relevant economic and social data, as well as their basic self-interest and lust for power, we can expect communism to quickly become imperfect, with crippling effects. By contrast, the market works because it is decentralized, and therefore self-correcting. The free market lets individual actors exploit opportunities for maximum gain, which is then recycled into the market when those gains are invested or traded for other goods and services, bringing greater wealth to all players in the market. All market transactions are voluntary. Communistic transactions are involuntary (determined from above), thus depriving the actors with the greatest knowledge (the producers) from making decisions that maximize return. Governments figure very little in market exchanges and therefore have little chance of ruining things.

As an economic policy, communism's practice means a small cadre of central planner's determine your options, not just for consuming goods, but also earning money. I want to choose for myself. I have read Marx, and the basic point is, "we know better than you what to do with your life." It means the tyranny of the majority, it means destroying lives for "the greater good" while ignoring the fact that society is a collection of those individual lives. It was a poorly written manifesto that was essentially a bourgeoisie kid's revenge against his parents, and what a death toll it racked up. I don't really care if the commies thus far on earth have been fake, they dealt in REAL DEATH. Way more than the NAZI's who were evil enough.

I HATE communism because INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS ARE THE MORAL BASIS OF A FREE SOCIETY. That means ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL FREEDOM, NOT CENTRAL PLANNING. IT MEANS KEEPING WHAT YOU EARN, NOT WHAT THE GOVERNMENT THINKS YOU DESERVE. Communism is the political expression of jealousy on the part of people who have utterly failed to comprehend the market. It promises unearned wealth. It promises to carry the weak on the back of the strong, the poor on the wealth of the rich, the stupid with the minds of the wise, and as such it enjoys wide support among the weak, poor and stupid. It appeals to their basest emotions, envy, greed and fear. Reason is nowhere to be seen, because it would be obvious to a reasonable man that no economy could ever be successfully structured that way, and none ever was. No communist I have ever met has ever displayed even a basic understanding of economics. None. Zero. Only in the vacuum of their minds does it work.

This argument is really moot. It will never, ever again be tried anywhere in the world as the organizing principle of any significant government. People ain't that stupid. The only place where it enjoys popularity is in the discussions of people enjoying the wealth and prosperity that Capitalism provides them. The irony is that just as emerging economies in the Third World are realizing tremendous gains in prosperity and stability, people in the great Capitalist Republics are becoming highly critical of the very system that brings the greatest wealth to the most people (duh, Capitalism). My only hope is that emerging market economies demonstrate once and for all their transformative powers, as once weak and insignificant countries rise to prominence through free trade, sound monetary policy, representative democracy and the rule of law over a constitutionally limited government. Marx will be a curious and laughable (except for communism's terrible legacy of mass-murder) footnote in the history books, where he belongs.

My viewpoint has been well-founded at this point. Instead of arguing I am going to refer you to a website:

www.socialistappeal.org

Umm... yeah. Where exactly are the substantive parts of that website? Have skimmed through a majority of the sections, and for the most part it is nothing more than unsubstantiated propoganda.

And, for future note, your thoughts aside, and academically speaking, socialism is a system in which the production of goods are controlled by the people and distrubited on a system of equity and fairness.

Communism is when the national economy is controlled by the government or state.

The moderate viewpoints expressed and apparently advocated on the webpage are ill defined and do not significantly differ from modern government, in america at least, in that government can sieze an industry or break apart a monopoly in defense of the public. No economic benefits are concretely outlined on the site.

people are expected to die of disease!?!?!
diseases that are treatable or curable?!?!
millions die in third world countries every year from diseases that almost no one dies from in the united states
aids and malaria could possibly be cured in a few short years with the kind of funding that the defense department received during the cold war
far more people would be saved in one or two years than any number of people who "died under communism" if capitalists wished for it to be

A large amount of money is spent yearly for such research. Money does not create new ideas or understanding. Even the best research on a drug for any disease, far less complicated than viral infections, takes decades to research and cure, and can cost billions. Aids has been studied for decades, recieved billions of dollars in research, and still has no cure, but we have made strides in treatment.

What communist nations have made such great strides for the eradication of diseases than western democracies? How much progress have made in the containment, treatment, or elimination of HIV compared to western democracies??

The only place where it enjoys popularity is in the discussions of people enjoying the wealth and prosperity that Capitalism provides them. The irony is that just as emerging economies in the Third World are realizing tremendous gains in prosperity and stability, people in the great Capitalist Republics are becoming highly critical of the very system that brings the greatest wealth to the most people (duh, Capitalism).

Orwell couldn't have said it better himself after coming to the same conclusion (which he did).

I have noticed a lot of hatred towards communists lately. Being a communist nation, I want to know why other nations hate communism.
Communism is a system of government in which people are entirely represented, classes (poor-middle-rich) are non-existent, pacifism is encouraged, education and health care are free for everyone, and freedom is valued. Why would anyone hate that system?

Because Communism has killed more people in one century than any other belief system has throughout the millenia of human existence.

Because Communism is idealistic and unnattainable.

Because Communism will always fail until there is a fundamental change in human nature.

There are two basic types of communism: what I'll call Communilism (which is similar to classical Marxist Communism and anarchy) and Communism (which is similar to Leninist, Maoist, adn Stalinist Communisms).

Under Communalism there is no government. Decisions are made by the people cooperating together and coming to decision by consensus. This has worked on the small scale in Amish, Hutterite, and other small communities. Communilism is found only among groups that share the same basic belief system. Because of this there shared beliefs overcome any petty differences they may have and everybody works together for the same basic goal. It is probably the best form of governance in existence, when it works. But here is the problem in large heterogenous groups, it does not work. Different people with different beliefs, some of which are often contradictory will not come to a consensus unless there is some central power that forces them to. When a Communalism contains a group that is too large or too heterogenous then the communalism will fail as a consensus will not be reached as one group will try to force it's will on another. A power struggle will emerge and the winner will form a government. Then the communalism will no longer exist.

As for Communism the government controls everything. As everybody knows absolute power corrupts absolutely. So whoever is in charge of the government will become corrupted or his successor will. At that point the communism breaks down into outright tyranny and the worst form of tyrrany. This is what happened in every major communist movement. The government became too powerful and became a tyranny.

If humans were perfect than communism would be great, but they aren't so communism is horrible.

Communism looks like shit on paper too. It is a total fantasy that ignores the basic facts of human nature, as well as all of nature. Competition defines the evolution of species, and their daily existence in their various ecosystems. Capitalism is the closest economic system to nature. Those who are best able to exploit niches achieve advantage, when the niche ceases to be because of changes in circumstance, adaptability will win the day.

Lets rephrase this:
Capitalism is closest to what animals and other 'lower' lifeforms do. Communism requires we, as a race, become something greater.

Sadly I agree that our 'ascension' is extremely unlikely.

We are in fact, animals. Our intelligence does not allow us to supercede our natures, nor does it allow us to redifine the fundamental principles out of which our intelligence evolved. Therefore, competition will always be with us. As such, we should adopt the system that best utilizes our nature to maximize the benefits for all mamkind. That is what Capitalism does. The disasterous consequences of denying our nature defined the great and tragic struggles of the 20th century. I would hope that we would have learned our lesson, but it seems some heads are thicker than others. Our best attempts at communism have worked only on the very smallest scale and NOT as governments, but as voluntary communities. I would never suggest we prevent people from forming these volutary groups based on Marxist ideals, but as a system of government and economic organization, communism always results in poverty, corruption, and death on a terrible scale.

This is ridiculous! I have heard so many people blindly insinuate that communism massacred millions of civilians. Communism has never been manifested in a sovereign state! Through simple ratiocination, we can deduce that communism has killed no one on the scale mentioned previously in this thread. Let me state this for the thousandth time, COMMUNISM HAS NEVER BEEN MANIFESTED IN A SOVEREIGN STATE!!! The USSR, China, Vietnam, Cuba-all of them are STALINIST!

This is ridiculous! I have heard so many people blindly insinuate that communism massacred millions of civilians. Communism has never been manifested in a sovereign state! Through simple ratiocination, we can deduce that communism has killed no one on the scale mentioned previously in this thread. Let me state this for the thousandth time, COMMUNISM HAS NEVER BEEN MANIFESTED IN A SOVEREIGN STATE!!! The USSR, China, Vietnam, Cuba-all of them are STALINIST!


By writing off the crimes of communism as "Not true communism" you keep writing yourself a blank check to make new communist regimes under the guise of "Well, it'll work this time, it'll be REAL communism."

The idea is inherently flawed, it will never work, it will always fail, call the genocidal regimes Stalinism if you wish, but the world (thankfully) sees it for what it is, the truth of communism is mass murder.

By writing off the crimes of communism as "Not true communism" you keep writing yourself a blank check to make new communist regimes under the guise of "Well, it'll work this time, it'll be REAL communism."

The idea is inherently flawed, it will never work, it will always fail, call the genocidal regimes Stalinism if you wish, but the world (thankfully) sees it for what it is, the truth of communism is mass murder.

As though fascism hasn't killed off huge numbers of people.

As though fascism hasn't killed off huge numbers of people.


Not as many as communism.

Not as many as communism.

You mean Marxism, which is one type of socialism which apparently doesn't work. Also, just because Marxism has killed more people doesn't excuse the kind of killing done by fascism.

you cant blame genocide on a form of government. you have to blame it on the PERSON who caused it.




no one even knows how true socialism and communism would work out seeing as how the marxist (true) version would require an international revolt.

To all you communists, I pray to God that you are just ignorant fools and do not realize the true despicable nature of communism. If you do, it just makes me ill to realize people will submit themselves to slavery and allow themselves to be murdered. Anyone suggesting that "true" communism hasn't come to fold yet, is ignorant for the reason why. The reason is due to the fact that communism cannot possibly work, so the communism that we see in the world to day, like all models is not ideal, but it is the reality fo communism and therefore should eb noted as communism. For all the people that praised communism and more specifically the leaders, I pray that it was all in jest considering these "heroes" have murdered millions upon millions of people. or stuck to wrongful ideals, becuase of two things, their own self benefit and their tremendous ego.

communism cannot possibly work.


Impossibility is a big claim, buddy. improbable? maybe.


besides, who are you to say it isnt posible? it hasnt even been attempted in a correct manner.

Communism help make everyone become greater? As if! That's a load of crap. it prevents people from becoming their greatest.

Example:
The government gives a farmer a few acres of land. The government says "Grow ten thousand of bushels of wheat a year and you may keep 2000 for yourself to use as credit to barter for anything you need."

The farmer decides there's more than enough land given for ten thousand bushels so he goes back to the government and asks. "Well... if I manage to grow fifteen thousand bushels in a year would I be able to keep 3000 instead?"

The government says no and that he would still only keep 2000, and the government would take the thirteen thousand bushels.

The farmer produces ten thousand bushels because there's no reason at all to work harder if there's no more benefit to it.

If he's excited about helping people, he might even produce fifteen thousand bushels out of generosity, but the extra work would take it's toll and eventually he'd keep himself content to just settle for ten thousand, provided he's even that excited about it in the first place.

So everyone becomes better by the government penalizing those who do better for themselves and rewards those who don't do anything.

Socialism has it's good points (care for the insane, homeless, etc. Sometimes the occasional fraud) But communism has essentially nothing (Something for nothing, penalize the better worker for no reason, reward the bum because he's sitting there collecting dust).

People don't like capitalism but here's an example done by Rush Limbaugh on one of his weekday broadcasts. This is not word for word but this is the paraphrase of it.

Capitalism:
A man decides he needs something so he goes to his neighbor and offers to mow his lawn and do some gardening. The neighbor agrees and the man accomplishes his end of the bargain. The neighbor, satisfied, gives the man a Certifice of Service.

The man takes the certificate to a local trading post and asks for a few recently released magazines. The clerk at the post asks if he has done any services for his fellow man.

The man says yes and shows his Certificate of Service to the clerk. The clerk finds he's done enough for the magazines and punches the certificate, showing that he's redeemed his work and even has done enough to deserve a little more than what he's asking at this time. The clerk gives the magazines to the man and the man takes them and his revised certificate back to his home and enjoys.

Socialism:
A man decides he needs something and considers going to his neighbor and offering some form of service, like gardening and mowing his lawn.

The government races along before he bothers and says to him. "Hey. You don't have to work for it. Just let us know what you want and we can take that certificate from your neighbor without you having to work for it."

So after storming the neighbor's house and stealing the neighbor's own hard-earned Certificate of Service, the man gets what he wants without working for it.

Now imagine how bad for the good worker communism would be?

Intriguing approach...how about this:

CAPITALISM
A man decides he wants to make some money. He creates a business and becomes successful. The business becomes a corporation. The man becomes an incredibly wealthy person. The corporation becomes internationally relevant. The corporation decides to cut overhead and produces its product in a third-world country, instigating a dependence upon this corporation among the citizens of the third-world country (and essentially controlling the government through its infrastructure). The corporation prompts unemployment in its original country (let's say the US) by removing manufacturing jobs. The company begins to devastate competition by offering its product at a low rate. The competition ceases to exist. The corporation, enjoying great wealth, begin to fuel political campaigns and control domestic politics. Once their candidate of choice wins (through campaign contributions, media control, and lobbying) the candidate creates more lenient anti-trust laws. The corporation becomes ubiquitous and omnipotent. The country now suffers from a corporate dictatorship.


COMMUNISM
A group of freedom-loving citizens decide to aid those around them that are less fortunate. These people form a party, and ultimately take control of the government. People that were previously: unemployed, homeless, starving, suffering from drug addiction, or devoid of medical attention-are all supported by the government. Workers earn little money from their efforts, yet enjoy a life free of misery. Since the efforts of the collective laboring body determine the extent of the luxuries enjoyed, everyone contributes to the fullest extent of their ability. Once the nation (through an outstanding GDP from high worker productivity) becomes wealthy, everyone becomes wealthy. All of the nations assets are evenly divided among the populace. Leaders are selected in an entirely democratic fashion. Leaders fulfill predesignated terms, and new democratic elections are held. The system allows for maximum freedom, state-sponsored benevolence, and societal decency. Only when the people ARE the government, can a political system succeed.

Don't expect us to take Limbaugh seriously. We don't put quotes from Mao here, do we?

Intriguing approach...how about this:

CAPITALISM
A man decides he wants to make some money. He creates a business and becomes successful. The business becomes a corporation. The man becomes an incredibly wealthy person. The corporation becomes internationally relevant. The corporation decides to cut overhead and produces its product in a third-world country, instigating a dependence upon this corporation among the citizens of the third-world country (and essentially controlling the government through its infrastructure). The corporation prompts unemployment in its original country (let's say the US) by removing manufacturing jobs. The company begins to devastate competition by offering its product at a low rate. The competition ceases to exist. The corporation, enjoying great wealth, begin to fuel political campaigns and control domestic politics. Once their candidate of choice wins (through campaign contributions, media control, and lobbying) the candidate creates more lenient anti-trust laws. The corporation becomes ubiquitous and omnipotent. The country now suffers from a corporate dictatorship.


COMMUNISM
A group of freedom-loving citizens decide to aid those around them that are less fortunate. These people form a party, and ultimately take control of the government. People that were previously: unemployed, homeless, starving, suffering from drug addiction, or devoid of medical attention-are all supported by the government. Workers earn little money from their efforts, yet enjoy a life free of misery. Since the efforts of the collective laboring body determine the extent of the luxuries enjoyed, everyone contributes to the fullest extent of their ability. Once the nation (through an outstanding GDP from high worker productivity) becomes wealthy, everyone becomes wealthy. All of the nations assets are evenly divided among the populace. Leaders are selected in an entirely democratic fashion. Leaders fulfill predesignated terms, and new democratic elections are held. The system allows for maximum freedom, state-sponsored benevolence, and societal decency. Only when the people ARE the government, can a political system succeed.

Right on. Its nice to see someone give the other side a chance.

I hate Communism because I love freedom.

Intriguing approach...how about this:

CAPITALISM
A man decides he wants to make some money. He creates a business and becomes successful. The business becomes a corporation. The man becomes an incredibly wealthy person. The corporation becomes internationally relevant.

And this is bad...why? I don't understand why people hate the wealthy. Is it jealousy? They have what y'all could have if you'd strive for it. But no. It's easy to sit on your ass and blast them because they amounted to something in their life. Of course, that's what Leftists do best...they're "for the little guy" and build him up...only to turn around and cut him down at the knees when he's actually made something of himself....


COMMUNISM
A group of freedom-loving citizens decide to aid those around them that are less fortunate.

"Communism" and "freedom-loving" do not co-exist as Communism only leads to totalitarianism.

These people form a party, and ultimately take control of the government. People that were previously: unemployed, homeless, starving, suffering from drug addiction, or devoid of medical attention-are all supported by the government.

....and then they execute anyone who disagrees with them....don't forget to add that....

Only when the people ARE the government, can a political system succeed.

Only when the government is out of the people's lives (ie: the government is as small as possible) can the people actually enjoy freedom and stability....

In response to Colerica:

Fascinating commentary. I noticed you "missed" the sections of my post pertaining to the effectiveness of communism and the detriments of capitalism. So a nation is better off when there is an insignificant government? Fair enough, that way the multi-millionaires can annihilate all of the homeless people with their assault rifles.

Might I also add, freedom is self-evident in a communist state (which marks the pinnacle of liberalism does it not?).

In response to Colerica:

Fascinating commentary. I noticed you "missed" the sections of my post pertaining to the effectiveness of communism and the detriments of capitalism. So a nation is better off when there is an insignificant government? Fair enough, that way the multi-millionaires can annihilate all of the homeless people with their assault rifles.

Might I also add, freedom is self-evident in a communist state (which marks the pinnacle of liberalism does it not?).

I apologize for only reading the first page or so, as I did not feel like reading through the entire thread.

This is how it works: the bigger a government is, the more tyrannical it becomes. When a nation is nose-deep in everyone's lives, they are a tyrannical government, in my eyes. I will fight against bigger government until the day I die.

Quick note: I'm sorry if you dislike someone being wealthy. That's not my fault and that's not there's. That's not anyone's fault. They are wealthy because they earned it (save for inheritence, in that case, their parents/grandparents earned it.....or for the lottery; which is just plain idiotic, in my view...but that's another story).

Second quick note: I wouldn't comment on something you seem to know little of -- firearms.

Main point of this post: Leftism does not equal freedom. Leftism is the home of tyranny. Leftism is the home of collectivism. Leftism is the home of statism. Nothing good has ever come from the Left. Any freedom-fighter that exists (who actually fights for freedom; we're not talking about Che Guevera here) is a Rightist.

The Right believes in a smaller government. The Left believes in a bigger goverment. The farther Right you go, the less government there is (which is why anarchists are Rightists by nature). The farther Left you go, the more government there is. More government leads to tyranny. Tyranny is oppression. Oppression, last I checked, is a bad thing.

There can be no freedom in a Communist state. The very idea of it is foolish and dishonest. You're lying to yourself if you honestly believe that freedom can come from the Left.....

Colerica:

I am assuming you are an American (Correct?). You have argued that "leftism" does not equal freedom. I'm afraid you aren't well read in the fields of "political science."
The further to the right you go, the less power people have in the government. The further to the left you go, the more power people have in the government. As a result you have the nexus of conservatism highlighted by fascism and then anarchy (which inevitably collapses). The nexus of liberalism is marked by communism. Unfortunately, these misconceptions disrupt the continuity of your argument. Oppresion is the direct result of public disenfranchisement from the government (i.e. fascism/despotism/dictatorships/etc..). Since there has never been a communist state, I can't sight any specific examples in which applied communism oppresses or doesn't oppress people (the USSR, China, Cuba,etc are stalinist). However, I can easily sight an example in which grotesque conservatism oppresses people: Nazi Germany.
Before I begin my discussion on Nazism, I wan't to clarify something. The nazi's were NOT socialists, don't pull that "yeah but they were National Socialists..." crap. That was a well-connived method Hitler used to confuse the voter base.
Back to what we were discussing. Nazism marks the product of right-wing extremism:blind-nationalism, no freedoms, racism, pro-military propaganda. I feel I have established my opinion on this issue, as such I will move on.

We will now discuss communism (idealogical/never been applied) and how it encourages freedom/discourages oppression. In a communist society, leaders are selected through uninhibited democratic process (one person one vote). This is nearly antithetical to the system that has been adopted in the United States, the electoral college (a system in which votes can be entirely disregarded). Communism allows for maximum freedom of the press, freedom of speech, and freedom of religion (that's right! Atheism isn't mandated!). You might recognize some of these as the First ammendment in your American Constitution (part of the bill of rights). The United States has undermined the freedoms granted in the Bill of Rights by enacting such atrocities as "the patriot act" (which was created and passed under your conservative president...dubya!).

Hopefully I've made my point.

Sorry for my delayed reply. I had a Christmas dinner to partake in.

Don't expect us to take Limbaugh seriously. We don't put quotes from Mao here, do we?
You could if you felt he was credible. Anyway you don't have to take Limbaugh seriously if you don't want to. The example, regardless of where it came from, still illustrates real differences in the two systems.

Anyway...

Your entire argument for communism assumes that everyone who is in the communist society actually wants to be and is working.

Since the efforts of the collective laboring body determine the extent of the luxuries enjoyed, everyone contributes to the fullest extent of their ability.

That's assuming everyone actually wants to work to their fullest, aka mindreading, which is something you can't do. There may be many who don't want to do their best and only want to do what they're comfortable with. The may be many who allow themselves to not work as hard as usual and not even notice a difference in their own personal living and thus keep working at a less productive level. Or maybe there might be those who see those doing less work getting the same exact rewards, so they too begin to work less.

Leaders fulfill predesignated terms, and new democratic elections are held.
More idealistic nonsense. There's no telling if any leaders in a communist society will be more effective than those in a capitalist society (with the exception of genocide and mass murder).

Workers earn little money from their efforts, yet enjoy a life free of misery.
How do you know? Will everyone just be nice to eachother? Will murders cease? Will pies taste better? You have no idea how people will be. So far Communism only shows suffering and genocide.

And your other example...

The corporation decides to cut overhead and produces its product in a third-world country, instigating a dependence upon this corporation among the citizens of the third-world country (and essentially controlling the government through its infrastructure).
Ah yes. Far be it from anyone to provide work to anyone outside their country. Let's stop any form of aid, then. And controlling the government? Recently, in South Africa a bunch of foreign-born farm owners were declared to have a monopoly and the government forced them off their land. That's one way to stop it. Then again the people they employed are now out of work and suffering. So what's your point?

The corporation prompts unemployment in its original country (let's say the US) by removing manufacturing jobs.
The corporation is free to act in it's best interests. If it can afford cheaper work elsewhere, the savings are then passed onto the consumer, meaning everyone, including the unemployed manufacturers so they don't have to spend all their welfare on an expensive product. Let's not be idiotic and think only US corporations export jobs. Plenty of other countries do it too (even to the United States) to make their products more cost effective and to keep shipping costs way down.

The company begins to devastate competition by offering its product at a low rate.
Oh no! Low prices! Ragnarok! You do realize Sam's Club, CostCo, and Walmart are all these types yet none are stomping the others. Go after Target, Mervyn's, JC Pennies, Macy's, Pentium and pretty much any big company. You don't like it, support the small businesses and spend more of your money. Don't tell the rest of us we should pay more because you're sad for the smaller higher priced guys.

The competition ceases to exist.
I still see a ton of competition.

The corporation, enjoying great wealth, begin to fuel political campaigns and control domestic politics. Once their candidate of choice wins (through campaign contributions, media control, and lobbying) the candidate creates more lenient anti-trust laws.
Please be sure to remember that John Kerry in the recent election got way more big business money than George W. Bush (who received more "Average family" money). Cheney forfeited millions of dollars to divest himself of any interests in Haliburton when he ran for Vice President. MoveOn.org spent way more money on shadey compaigns than Vietnam Veterans for Truth. John Kerry lost both the electoral college and the popular vote despite millions and millions of dollars. The people aren't robots like you'd prefer. If the people don't like the direction the country is headed in, they'll vote in a new person.

The country now suffers from a corporate dictatorship.

To quote myself...:

If the people don't like the direction the country is headed in, they'll vote in a new person.

The problem with communism is not that it has a tendency to turn into military dictatorship, but rather that it has no effective mechanism for allocating resources.

Colerica:

I am assuming you are an American (Correct?). You have argued that "leftism" does not equal freedom. I'm afraid you aren't well read in the fields of "political science."

Yes, I'm an American and I'm rather well read in political science, for your information.


The further to the right you go, the less power people have in the government.

Ah, that's where you fall flat on your face, my young 'o'friend. The Right seeks invididualism. I seek to eliminate all excess government. The government's only roles are to maintain order (protect us from enemies domestic and foreign as well as maintain law enforcement of some form) and protect property. It is not the gov't's role to baby its citizens with welfare programs to create a dependant populace. That's what you seek.

The further to the left you go, the more power people have in the government.

You should rephrase that; you're confusing yourself. The farther Left you go, the more people in the government have. That's what your statement should read.

As a result you have the nexus of conservatism highlighted by fascism and then anarchy (which inevitably collapses).

This has nothing to do with liberal vs. conservative. Those are useless words in the realm of politics. By definition, I'm a liberal. I seek drastic change. However, I seek change to turn us back to what to the Republic our Founders invisioned. All liberal means is to favor change; all conservative means is to favor the way things are.

The nexus of liberalism is marked by communism.

That says a lot. Really. If you equate "liberalism" with the Left; than that really does say everything...thank you for proving one of my own points...

Oppresion is the direct result of public disenfranchisement from the government (i.e. fascism/despotism/dictatorships/etc..).

And all oppression stems from a bigger, more controlling government. Who advocates a bigger, more involved government? The Left. Thanks for trying. You can check out with the secretary at the door.

Since there has never been a communist state, I can't sight any specific examples in which applied communism oppresses or doesn't oppress people

Don't give me that. That's your only defense. "Oh, there's never been a Commie nation. That's why Communism is so great. Et al ad infinitium." Keep your blather to yourself.

(the USSR, China, Cuba,etc are stalinist).

Stalin was a Leftist. Again, this says volumes about your sick, twisted idealogy.

However, I can easily sight an example in which grotesque conservatism oppresses people: Nazi Germany.

Before I begin my discussion on Nazism, I wan't to clarify something. The nazi's were NOT socialists, don't pull that "yeah but they were National Socialists..." crap. That was a well-connived method Hitler used to confuse the voter base.

Nazi Germany was a Leftist nation. Hitler was a Leftist. Perhaps you'd like to see this:

http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/id9.html

Not that you'll believe it; that is if you even read it.


Back to what we were discussing. Nazism marks the product of right-wing extremism:blind-nationalism, no freedoms, racism, pro-military propaganda. I feel I have established my opinion on this issue, as such I will move on.

Nazism marks the highpoint of the Left: total governmental control. A cult of hatred. No freedoms; rampant oppression of everyone. Welcome to your world.


We will now discuss communism (idealogical/never been applied) and how it encourages freedom/discourages oppression.

Nothing that calls for the forced take-over of another man's property advocates freedom.

In a communist society, leaders are selected through uninhibited democratic process (one person one vote).

....and then they rule with an iron fist and kill all of their dissenters. We know. We've been through this before. We see this everyone time we take a peak back through history. 100+ million people killed: Leftism in action.


This is nearly antithetical to the system that has been adopted in the United States, the electoral college (a system in which votes can be entirely disregarded).

The Electoral College is the way we elect our President. It is entirely irrelevant to this discusison.

Communism allows for maximum freedom of the press, freedom of speech, and freedom of religion (that's right! Atheism isn't mandated!).

Communism calls for the complete censorship of all press, speech, and atheism is mandated(!). Oh sorry, slight error there. Stalin didn't mandate atheism; he made himself a god among his people....


You might recognize some of these as the First ammendment in your American Constitution (part of the bill of rights).

Very good. Do you want a cookie because you know the First Amendment to the United States of America's Bill of Rights; the first ten ammendments to the United States' Constitution? I'm a well-read, well-educated Constitutionalist -- I know far more than you want to give me credit for (another aspect of the Left: elitism).

The United States has undermined the freedoms granted in the Bill of Rights by enacting such atrocities as "the patriot act" (which was created and passed under your conservative president...dubya!).

A: The PATRIOT Act does infringe on certain freedoms. That is why I'm against it.

B: George W. Bush is a statist Leftist. Michael Anthony Peroutka should be our President. Bush is not on the Right.

[quote]
Hopefully I've made my point.

"Oh, I'm sorry, Johnny, I forgot you were there. You may go now."

Your point was, what, exactly? To prove me even more correct? I admit, I'm a bit narccistic (read as: really narccistic), but I don't need the extra brush to my ego on your behalf. I don't want to make you look any worse than I have to. Shredding your Leftist fallacies is plenty enough to make me happy. I only hope I can turn you or one of your ilk to see the light and fight for the cause of actual freedom -- the Right.

The United States has undermined the freedoms granted in the Bill of Rights by enacting such atrocities as "the patriot act" (which was created and passed under your conservative president...dubya!).

Which was rushed through by a Democrat controlled congress in the wake of 9/11 because everyone, especially those in the left, felt the government should have been able to catch a major event like that before it happened and so it was pushed through because people wanted it. it was only when people actually looked at it that it became a problem. Like medicare. Everyone wanted it, but now almost everyone in the US says it's a huge waste of money and should be removed.

However, I can easily sight an example in which grotesque conservatism oppresses people: Nazi Germany.
The Nazi party was made up (or at least begun on the foundation of) communism. Whether or not Hitler was using it to confuse voters didn't change the fact that people followed it those ideals. Your own blind followers.

Nazism marks the product of right-wing extremism:blind-nationalism, no freedoms, racism, pro-military propaganda.
Nice try throwing in racism. Clinton, the left's beloved "Black President" had less minorities on his cabinet than George W. Bush, the man the left tries to make out as a racist person trying to disenfranchise black voters (Propaganda for which there was NO evidence at all, not even from Reverend Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. Neither could even name a single damn African American who was kept away from voting in 2000. Thus they create a feeling among their race of being victimized and hated, provoking more crime and violence as the uneducated feel their country is against them.).

This is nearly antithetical to the system that has been adopted in the United States, the electoral college (a system in which votes can be entirely disregarded).
The electoral college is still very accurate. It creates a litmus test of a state's feelings and gives the majority the voters the electoral votes for the state. The only time the electoral college contradicted the popular was in 2000. Other than that anamoly, it's been very accurate.

Communism allows for maximum freedom of the press, freedom of speech, and freedom of religion (that's right! Atheism isn't mandated!).
Cite an example, please?

(Aimed at Colerica's last post)
Of course. Those are the reasons that Communism just can't work and people hate it. As I was speaking with some friends the other day, one of them asked me what was real communism. I told the reality, and they replied with, "Why the hell would anyone like that?!?". They talk of freeing the lower class but in reality they just oppress them even worse than the former form of government. Who wants to have their hard-earned property and currency taken away and have you shipped to some collective farm to work for nothing? No one.

I have noticed a lot of hatred towards communists lately. Being a communist nation, I want to know why other nations hate communism.
Communism is a system of government in which people are entirely represented, classes (poor-middle-rich) are non-existent, pacifism is encouraged, education and health care are free for everyone, and freedom is valued. Why would anyone hate that system?
That's Marxism. Stalinist Communism is just pure statism that results in horrific dictatorships (i.e. Chairman Mao). Socialism at its fundamentals is a good idea, but the closest you can really come to it is in Scandinavia right now.

Nice try throwing in racism. Clinton, the left's beloved "Black President" had less minorities on his cabinet than George W. Bush, the man the left tries to make out as a racist person trying to disenfranchise black voters (Propaganda for which there was NO evidence at all, not even from Reverend Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. Neither could even name a single damn African American who was kept away from voting in 2000. Thus they create a feeling among their race of being victimized and hated, provoking more crime and violence as the uneducated feel their country is against them.).
Clinton actually had more women and people of color than any president, INCLUDING Bush. Does that mean he's racist? Of course not. Any person who tells you that Bush is a fascist or racist is not in mainstream politics. I hate him, but I also hate Al Sharpton for turning everything into a "battle of the races". Third-way centrism is the way to go!

The Nazi party was made up (or at least begun on the foundation of) communism. Whether or not Hitler was using it to confuse voters didn't change the fact that people followed it those ideals. Your own blind followers.

The nazis might have been socialist in some sense, but they were definitely not communist or Marxist. They hated communism. In fact, fascism is in many ways a reaction to the threat of socialist revolution.

The nazis might have been socialist in some sense, but they were definitely not communist or Marxist. They hated communism. In fact, fascism is in many ways a reaction to the threat of socialist revolution.
Not so much a reaction, more like a counterpart

Yes, it has a horrible reputation.
Whilst communism is an extremely good ideal, it isn't very realistic. No one in history has been able to create a truly communist nation as Marx saw it. Too often, as Siap pointed out, they turn into military dictatorships and people are generally oppressed.
It's good in thought, but bites in reality.


Just like capitalism. Seems like a good idea, but no-one's ever achieved it. If they had capitalist countries like Burkina Faso wouldn't be so poor and under developed.

Plus people hate communism because they associate it with Stalinism and Maoism, with the mass-murders and such it's easly for people to get "Communism=bad" drilled into them.

It's not my job to care about the thirld world
It IS your job to care about the third world, because they are human beings, just like yourself. Shame on you. If you were in their position, would you be feeling the same way? Oh, but their opinion doesn't count.. :rolleyes:

Which was rushed through by a Democrat controlled congress in the wake of 9/11 because everyone, especially those in the left, felt the government should have been able to catch a major event like that before it happened and so it was pushed through because people wanted it. it was only when people actually looked at it that it became a problem. Like medicare. Everyone wanted it, but now almost everyone in the US says it's a huge waste of money and should be removed.

The Patriot Act wasn't read by most of congress. In any event, the US Democratic Party is HARDLY liberal.



The Nazi party was made up (or at least begun on the foundation of) communism. Whether or not Hitler was using it to confuse voters didn't change the fact that people followed it those ideals. Your own blind followers.

Are you legally retarded? Nazism is practically opposite to communism. Please, before you do any more damage with your unbearable ignorance, buy a copy of Rise and Fall of The Third Reich by William L. Schirer. That book should clear up a few misconceptions you have pertaining to nazism.


Nice try throwing in racism. Clinton, the left's beloved "Black President" had less minorities on his cabinet than George W. Bush, the man the left tries to make out as a racist person trying to disenfranchise black voters (Propaganda for which there was NO evidence at all, not even from Reverend Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. Neither could even name a single damn African American who was kept away from voting in 2000. Thus they create a feeling among their race of being victimized and hated, provoking more crime and violence as the uneducated feel their country is against them.).

Again, the Democrats are hardly liberal in the first place. Why are you comparing communism to feigned American liberalism? That is like comparing glo-sticks to plutonium. I also find it amusing that you are comparing Nazism to american politics (freudian slip).


The electoral college is still very accurate. It creates a litmus test of a state's feelings and gives the majority the voters the electoral votes for the state. The only time the electoral college contradicted the popular was in 2000. Other than that anamoly, it's been very accurate.

Accurate? First, there is no guarantee that the electors are going to place their vote for who they are supposed to (in the electoral college). You could have a Kerry voter/Bush voter vote for a completely different candidate. Is that representative? Second, if I'm a democrat and live in texas (or a republican in California) does my vote matter? Of course not, the majority wins that state.


Cite an example, please?

I cite the Communist Manifesto. In addition, I cite the French commune of 1871. I also sight the Bible. You do realize that Jesus was a communist don't you?

I also sight the Bible. You do realize that Jesus was a communist don't you?

Put down the marijuana, my delusional young friend. Seems silly to put the Lord, Jesus Christ, into a idealogy. But it's a silly world we live in, so.....Christ taught and performed charity. He also preached one's responsibility for one's own actions and a relationship with God. That's not a Leftist philosophy.

He did not force the Roman government to provide welfare nor did He say it was government's responsibility. He advocated true charity from individuals. Sorry, no welfare program. (And isn't it funny that red states contribute the most charity, and blue states contribute the least?)

John 18:36
Revelation 19:11.21
John 18:36
John 2:13-17
Matthew 21:12-13
2 Thessalonians 1:7-8
Revelation 19:11, 14-15

However, what Rebepa-whatever and those like him/her attempt to do is take a one-sided look at what Jesus advocated, the side that upholds their ideas for a welfare state, and refuse to acknowledge the entire spectrum, if you will, of Jesus' teachings which makes it clear that Jesus' philosophy is nothing like the Left.

Moreover, Jesus healed the sick, fed the hungry and all out of compassion, willingly and freely. He did not tell the rich in the community to shell out 50% to pay for their expenses. He used his own resources to meet the needs of the people instead of demanding those with the resources to give them up by taxing them.

Herod wanted all competition dead. Herod was the statist Leftist in the Good Book; not Jesus. Jesus wanted the poorest and meekest to be helped (and to learn to help themselves); Herod wanted everyone to fall in line behind him and serve as his subjects.

In conclusion, I have nothing to add but this: pwn3d.

Are you legally retarded? Nazism is practically opposite to communism. Please, before you do any more damage with your unbearable ignorance, buy a copy of Rise and Fall of The Third Reich by William L. Schirer. That book should clear up a few misconceptions you have pertaining to nazism.

Ah, yes, when losing a debate, it's always a good call to toss out a few ad-hominems at your victorious opponent(s). Moreover, did you even take a look at the link I supplied you with or are you too afraid of the truth?

The Nazi party was made up (or at least begun on the foundation of) communism.

aha, no.

russian communism was despised world wide. most of europe even hated russia, and western europe saw germany as a buffer zone against it, until they allied with russia temporairily.

infact, hitler got his ideal from mussolini, seeing as how facism, (faces) as it is in roman, is a bundle of sticks tied around an axe handle, symbolizing ultimate power. somehow, the word 'fag' also came from this.

aha, no.

russian communism was despised world wide. most of europe even hated russia, and western europe saw germany as a buffer zone against it, until they allied with russia temporairily.

infact, hitler got his ideal from mussolini, seeing as how facism, (faces) as it is in roman, is a bundle of sticks tied around an axe handle, symbolizing ultimate power. somehow, the word 'fag' also came from this.

It's "fascism" with an "s" before the "c." Not "facism." I know of no one who hates faces.

EDIT: Mussolini was the first, by name, fascist leader with his Fascisti party (the Blackshirts). Hitler joined (and took control of) the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterparte. Hitler wasn't a fascist; he was a National Socialist.

Rebo,

You have not cited the communits manifesto. I offered its ideals and discredited them based on false assumptions of behavioral ecology, and the use of Mathusian economics-also wrong. Marx and Engels were not fans of religion. I believe the manifesto spoke against it, if not, Marx surely did. As he did not like the idea of a totalitarian system governing the ideals of the populous.

Any way, after being told about the failings of the manifesto, you presented a web page devoid of any substantive information, that outlines a system of government via the liberal and labor parties of Britian, as new socialism. However, what it outlines is not significantly different than what congress and parliament already have the power to do. And now you are back to citing the Manifesto as what your viewpoint is based on? Make up your mind. Do not jump from one different socialist ideal to another when it is opportune to do so, and then proclaim socialism in general to be good.

Jesus did preach what could be considered socialist ideals. However, his being the son of a god that is a divine ruler and whose laws must be obeyed in order to enter heaven, is in no way communism. Unless you are now saying that communism does lend itself to totalitarianism.

Put down the marijuana, my delusional young friend. Seems silly to put the Lord, Jesus Christ, into a idealogy. But it's a silly world we live in, so.....Christ taught and performed charity. He also preached one's responsibility for one's own actions and a relationship with God. That's not a Leftist philosophy.

He did not force the Roman government to provide welfare nor did He say it was government's responsibility. He advocated true charity from individuals. Sorry, no welfare program. (And isn't it funny that red states contribute the most charity, and blue states contribute the least?)

John 18:36
Revelation 19:11.21
John 18:36
John 2:13-17
Matthew 21:12-13
2 Thessalonians 1:7-8
Revelation 19:11, 14-15

However, what Rebepa-whatever and those like him/her attempt to do is take a one-sided look at what Jesus advocated, the side that upholds their ideas for a welfare state, and refuse to acknowledge the entire spectrum, if you will, of Jesus' teachings which makes it clear that Jesus' philosophy is nothing like the Left.

Moreover, Jesus healed the sick, fed the hungry and all out of compassion, willingly and freely. He did not tell the rich in the community to shell out 50% to pay for their expenses. He used his own resources to meet the needs of the people instead of demanding those with the resources to give them up by taxing them.

Herod wanted all competition dead. Herod was the statist Leftist in the Good Book; not Jesus. Jesus wanted the poorest and meekest to be helped (and to learn to help themselves); Herod wanted everyone to fall in line behind him and serve as his subjects.

In conclusion, I have nothing to add but this: pwn3d.

Very interesting. Pray tell how Jesus would have "forced the Roman government to provide welfare"? Jesus was a pacifist, he believed that it was each persons responsibility to aid (selflessly, I might add) those that are in need around them. Did not Jesus live in a commune with his followers (in which all was shared)? Did not Jesus denounce capitalism by stating (when referencing currency/capital) "Give to the emperor what is the emperor's" (also showing a regard for taxation)?
"If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men." Romans 12:18 (pacifism)
"Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ." Galatians 6:2 (communism)
"If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit? Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone." James 2:15-17
It would, in my opinion, make more sense that Jesus would support sharing and love over selfishness and greed. Then again, I'm just a pothead to you aren't I? By the way, I've never done drugs, and I never intend to.

Rebo,

You have not cited the communits manifesto. I offered its ideals and discredited them based on false assumptions of behavioral ecology, and the use of Mathusian economics-also wrong. Marx and Engels were not fans of religion. I believe the manifesto spoke against it, if not, Marx surely did. As he did not like the idea of a totalitarian system governing the ideals of the populous.

Any way, after being told about the failings of the manifesto, you presented a web page devoid of any substantive information, that outlines a system of government via the liberal and labor parties of Britian, as new socialism. However, what it outlines is not significantly different than what congress and parliament already have the power to do. And now you are back to citing the Manifesto as what your viewpoint is based on? Make up your mind. Do not jump from one different socialist ideal to another when it is opportune to do so, and then proclaim socialism in general to be good.

Jesus did preach what could be considered socialist ideals. However, his being the son of a god that is a divine ruler and whose laws must be obeyed in order to enter heaven, is in no way communism. Unless you are now saying that communism does lend itself to totalitarianism.

I am sorry to hear that you are unsatisfied with the website I provided. Perhaps these will be more useful:

http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/classics/manifesto.html
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm

You can probably find out everything you would need from the aforementioned websites.

As far as religion is concerned, Marx certainly wasn't an advocate for state-sponsored religion. However, religion is not banned under communism. Marx didn't support religion because he was (suprise) an atheist. There is nothing wrong with this, but it does explain why people perceive communism to be anti-religion.

Not being British, I am not as familiar with parliament as I would like to be. However, under an appropriate socialist system, people would not be so horrendously mal-represented as they are in the United States.

To address your last point. Jesus being a communist (or not being a communist) is a quagmire of an issue. There is a plethora of proof in favor, and to the contrary, of the communism question. I, for one, do not believe that Jesus was the son of god. As such, I am not expected to believe in christianity. Am I? I feel that Heaven and Hell were contrived by some maniacal aristocrat that wanted to terrify the (already enslaved)empoverished serfs into paying tithes. This is all a grand scheme. Why is it that the root of organized christianity is fiscal? Does this conform to the teachings of Christ? I should say not. The priests molesting children is a completely different issue, but it shows that these people are charlatans.

Yes, it has a horrible reputation.
Whilst communism is an extremely good ideal, it isn't very realistic. No one in history has been able to create a truly communist nation as Marx saw it. Too often, as Siap pointed out, they turn into military dictatorships and people are generally oppressed.
It's good in thought, but bites in reality.

actually there is... most of the north america indian tribes... they shared everything and there where no possesions besides some personal items like tomahawks and such... Only thing with communism is it is about giving people wages based on the amount of job they do. So a hard working loader basicly should get more than some politican that only sits and spits... Communism is a beautiful idea, but it has also flaws. only few people think idealistic and not with their bellies..

I have noticed a lot of hatred towards communists lately. Being a communist nation, I want to know why other nations hate communism.
Communism is a system of government in which people are entirely represented, classes (poor-middle-rich) are non-existent, pacifism is encouraged, education and health care are free for everyone, and freedom is valued. Why would anyone hate that system?

Because communism takes what I have worked for/earned and gives it to another, whether I want that to be done or not. This does not = freedom to my mind.

You are greedy sir. You need to learn how to share. That about sums it up for all you capitalist pigs.



P.S. I hate you

You are greedy sir. You need to learn how to share. That about sums it up for all you capitalist pigs.



P.S. I hate you
Shouldn't it be my right to be a greedy piece of shit?

You are greedy sir. You need to learn how to share. That about sums it up for all you capitalist pigs.

P.S. I hate you

Well I suppose you are entitled to hate me if you so desire, though I wish that weren't the case.

As for being greedy, I am not. I very profoundly believe I have a moral responsibility to care for others to the best of my ability. I just don't believe you, or anyone else, have the right to take from me the fruit of my labor and give it to another. That is called stealing. If I give it of my own volition, it is a gift and should be received as such. Since you didn't work for it, you have no right to it until it is given to you by the one who did work for it.

If I work hard, I want to reap the benefits of that and not have someone else who may sit on their ass all day get the same benefit. It just isnt the way things should work.

You are greedy sir. You need to learn how to share. That about sums it up for all you capitalist pigs.



P.S. I hate you



A n00b with way too much to say if you ask me. Pple should share but also should chose whom they share with. Sometimes, you get what you deserve, other times you dont.

Having not read the previous twelve pages I don't know if this has already been mentioned.

Orthodox Marxism is too dangerous to be implemented. Firstly most Marxists advocate revolution, some advocate it by a small vanguard. This will simply result in dictatorships, I do not have enough faith in revolutions to believe they will result in democracy (see every example of 'communism' used by the right - they are revolutions gone wrong). In the west they are unneccesary as well. The workers already have the theoretical power to vote in a suitably left wing government. If you can mobilize the proletariat to rise up why can you not moblize them to the ballot box?

Secondly there is an inherent problem with Orthodox Marxism (and communism) - the abolition of private property. Who will hold the former private property? The state. The state will then have far too much power, again opening the way for abuse. Is this not also an infringment of people civil liberties? It could be argued under a true Marxist state the people would hold power, but this would need regulation. The closest to this idea is democracy, the more anarchist ideas of it seem to me a little naive.

This is why I now believe in Democratic Socialisism, and have rejected Marxism. Though Marx can used as one of many guides for the socialist state, but should not be implemented in a pure form i.e. communism.

I hate Communism because I love freedom.

Then you hate freedom.

How about it doesnt work. Communism turns out as a huge mess, it hurts the nations econemy and turns it into a brutal dictatorship.

Communism that allows religious freedom would work but few communist allow that. Maybe that was why it does'nt work?

You are greedy sir. You need to learn how to share. That about sums it up for all you capitalist pigs.



P.S. I hate you

I dont flippin' work so that some grocery bagger can get the same amount of money as a technical engineer, and both of them get no say in the job they are given.

I dont flippin' work so that some grocery bagger can get the same amount of money as a technical engineer, and both of them get no say in the job they are given.
You don't really know what communism is do you.

Just look at my native Cuba,
it is no socialist democratic paradise,
I keep trying to point this fact out to others
and they still dont beleive it, look at
the Cuban boat people on anything that floats,
rafts, inner tubes, floating trucks,
across 90 miles of shark infested waters,
the comfortable government ones that defect,
artist, profesionals, doctors, etc etc etc,
how many defections do we see the other way.

You work so your money isnt shared someone who you consider to have a less important job than you. Hmmm when put that way i think you sound like an asshole. No offense

Why dont people like communism? Two words: Soviet Union

If by Soviet Union you mean when stalin took power it no longer was a communistic society it became a dictatorship.

I'd like to say my opinion.

I live in Croatia. It's an republic who separated herself from former Jugoslavia.
I'll tell you how did that happened because even in our own country little people know truth. So you can se how foolish democracy is.

When Josip Broz Tito died, whole Jugoslavia went to mess.
In 1990 Croatian goverment called for a referendum about separation of Croatia from Jugoslavia. It was about 90-95% for separation. So it was done.
But crap happened. In Croatia lived many serbs, but Croatian goverment made media campain agains serb. And so did Jugoslavia about croats. Serbs in Croatia agreed to separate Croatia from Jugoslavia, but they wanted to be equal in rights with Croats. Croatian goverment and people didn't want that. So in all Croatian territory where serb were dominative (more serbs than croats) they created an special country called Kraina. (because it was in similar place where Austo-Hungary made millitary belt for defense of the Turcs in middle age) So Jugoslavian national army started to retreat from Croatian territory to Kraina. In Kraina started etnical cleaning of croats, and in Croatia etnical cleaning of serbs. War started. Nationalistic serbs from serbia called Četnics joined rebelled serbs in Kraina and they made mass murders and burned almost every croatian house. When Kraina was conquered by Croatian army all serbs fleed in fear, only old people remained.
Croatian army even joined conflict in Bosnia and Hercegovina (BiH) and that was a mistake, they even did some masacres. But that's another story.
So...war contionued...but I'm offtopic.

After war started the privatization of national companies (who were in Jugoslavia managed by state). Goverment members, mostly members of strongest party HDZ (croatina democratic union) took national firms and clamed them their own.
So were created new class of ritch people called "Tajkun", they were buying national companies for simbolic 1$ from goverment, then sacked workers, and sold equipment and got ritch. In that process one hundred thousand (100 000) people found themselves in street, jobless. Today 20% percent of people in croatia in unemployed. And 1/4 of population are retired, living with 120$ pension monthly. So we destroyed most of our industry. Then multinational firms came, bought everything that left and worthed something. Sacked part of the workers and raised the prices for 200%.

Best exsample for this is HPT (Croatian mail and telecomunications). It was first separated to inefitient HP (Croatian mail), and highly efective HT (Croatian telecomunications). Then HT was sold to Deutsche telekom with specilal privilegies in contract. Before that Vodafone came to our land as competition to DT. But there was no competition, 1 minute of talk from one network (DT) to other (Vodaforen) and to fixed line costs 3 Kune (national currency). Average income of one worker mothly is 2500 Kuna. 1 euro=7.6 kuna. After that rise of prices DT sacked 700 and later 1200 workers.

Our country is in great debt. People are taking credits from banks, with camat of 4-9%. Whole state has bigger debt to international bank than 1 years BDP. Goverment is economicy retarded, corruption is everywhere (last month my garden won 3nd place for nicest garden in region, but I was disqualified because one ritch guy who got after war one 5 star castle by goverment, wanted to be on the list) mafia works closely with goverment, ar... it would be better to say that goverment is mafia itself. There is no job, if you get job, pay is low and people treat you like garbage. (only in private companies, in goverment you get easy job for big pay- but you have to be connected in some way with mafia to get that kind of job). People are mostly poor an dissapointed with goverment. They don't trust no politician because for 4 years Coalition (left winged commies, and other left parties) tried to make our county better, but they were useless und made no changes.
Now 3rd strongest party in country is HPS (extreme right nationalists), goverment is ruled by HDZ (remember them?).

To be honest, Jugoslavia was paradise compared to this. In Jugoslavia religion, and nationalisym weren't most popular things, but people were happier and ritcher, and they didn't concerned every day if tomorrow they will eat bread and water. They were all Jugoslavens, there was no rasism like today when skinheads in capital city beat up black and yellow people, and gipsys. Nationalysm is very strong and hatred is everywhere.
Comunism was iron fisted, but only for our good. We were lucky that Tito resisted Staljin, because Staljin wanted Jugoslavia join SSSR. Thet would be catastrophic.

Democracy and capitalism brought only criminals to rule the nation, and people to beggar staff.

Some of us dream of joining EU (european union) but like thet is going to happen, and it is questionable if thet would be even good thing for us.

Communism is good thing but like any other system, only if it is ruled by right people.

I hope you understood what I wrote, my english is not as good as I would like it to be.

If by Soviet Union you mean when stalin took power it no longer was a communistic society it became a dictatorship.

And it wasn't a dictatorship under Lenin?

Show trials, rigged elections, mass executions of dissidents, ending of free speech, party purges....all started under Comrade Lenin.

"What is the point of a revolution without firing squads?"
- V.I.Lenin

I love the idea of communism, I'm not sure it really works the way people would like it to, but no political system does.

I have noticed a lot of hatred towards communists lately. Being a communist nation, I want to know why other nations hate communism.
Communism is a system of government in which people are entirely represented, classes (poor-middle-rich) are non-existent, pacifism is encouraged, education and health care are free for everyone, and freedom is valued. Why would anyone hate that system?


Both "good" and militant communism are inherently evil, because both replace individual liberty, choice, and freedom with collective will, oppression, and conformity

I'd like to say my opinion.

I live in Croatia. It's an republic who separated herself from former Jugoslavia.
I'll tell you how did that happened because even in our own country little people know truth. So you can se how foolish democracy is.

When Josip Broz Tito died, whole Jugoslavia went to mess.
In 1990 Croatian goverment called for a referendum about separation of Croatia from Jugoslavia. It was about 90-95% for separation. So it was done.
But crap happened. In Croatia lived many serbs, but Croatian goverment made media campain agains serb. And so did Jugoslavia about croats. Serbs in Croatia agreed to separate Croatia from Jugoslavia, but they wanted to be equal in rights with Croats. Croatian goverment and people didn't want that. So in all Croatian territory where serb were dominative (more serbs than croats) they created an special country called Kraina. (because it was in similar place where Austo-Hungary made millitary belt for defense of the Turcs in middle age) So Jugoslavian national army started to retreat from Croatian territory to Kraina. In Kraina started etnical cleaning of croats, and in Croatia etnical cleaning of serbs. War started. Nationalistic serbs from serbia called Četnics joined rebelled serbs in Kraina and they made mass murders and burned almost every croatian house. When Kraina was conquered by Croatian army all serbs fleed in fear, only old people remained.
Croatian army even joined conflict in Bosnia and Hercegovina (BiH) and that was a mistake, they even did some masacres. But that's another story.
So...war contionued...but I'm offtopic.

After war started the privatization of national companies (who were in Jugoslavia managed by state). Goverment members, mostly members of strongest party HDZ (croatina democratic union) took national firms and clamed them their own.
So were created new class of ritch people called "Tajkun", they were buying national companies for simbolic 1$ from goverment, then sacked workers, and sold equipment and got ritch. In that process one hundred thousand (100 000) people found themselves in street, jobless. Today 20% percent of people in croatia in unemployed. And 1/4 of population are retired, living with 120$ pension monthly. So we destroyed most of our industry. Then multinational firms came, bought everything that left and worthed something. Sacked part of the workers and raised the prices for 200%.

Best exsample for this is HPT (Croatian mail and telecomunications). It was first separated to inefitient HP (Croatian mail), and highly efective HT (Croatian telecomunications). Then HT was sold to Deutsche telekom with specilal privilegies in contract. Before that Vodafone came to our land as competition to DT. But there was no competition, 1 minute of talk from one network (DT) to other (Vodaforen) and to fixed line costs 3 Kune (national currency). Average income of one worker mothly is 2500 Kuna. 1 euro=7.6 kuna. After that rise of prices DT sacked 700 and later 1200 workers.

Our country is in great debt. People are taking credits from banks, with camat of 4-9%. Whole state has bigger debt to international bank than 1 years BDP. Goverment is economicy retarded, corruption is everywhere (last month my garden won 3nd place for nicest garden in region, but I was disqualified because one ritch guy who got after war one 5 star castle by goverment, wanted to be on the list) mafia works closely with goverment, ar... it would be better to say that goverment is mafia itself. There is no job, if you get job, pay is low and people treat you like garbage. (only in private companies, in goverment you get easy job for big pay- but you have to be connected in some way with mafia to get that kind of job). People are mostly poor an dissapointed with goverment. They don't trust no politician because for 4 years Coalition (left winged commies, and other left parties) tried to make our county better, but they were useless und made no changes.
Now 3rd strongest party in country is HPS (extreme right nationalists), goverment is ruled by HDZ (remember them?).

To be honest, Jugoslavia was paradise compared to this. In Jugoslavia religion, and nationalisym weren't most popular things, but people were happier and ritcher, and they didn't concerned every day if tomorrow they will eat bread and water. They were all Jugoslavens, there was no rasism like today when skinheads in capital city beat up black and yellow people, and gipsys. Nationalysm is very strong and hatred is everywhere.
Comunism was iron fisted, but only for our good. We were lucky that Tito resisted Staljin, because Staljin wanted Jugoslavia join SSSR. Thet would be catastrophic.

Democracy and capitalism brought only criminals to rule the nation, and people to beggar staff.

Some of us dream of joining EU (european union) but like thet is going to happen, and it is questionable if thet would be even good thing for us.

Communism is good thing but like any other system, only if it is ruled by right people.

I hope you understood what I wrote, my english is not as good as I would like it to be.


Your ENglish is fine. Your grasp of Liberty isnt.

Basically, what you said was, you would rathe rbe the government's slave than deal with both the positive and negative effects of liberty.

This could also do with the fact that Yugoslavia was an non Stalinist communist country, which is marginally better than its Stalinist counterpart

I don't really hate it, but I don't like it because I think it's unrealistic. It goes against human nature to share everything, in my opinion. It just doesn't work on a large scale.

And when I say it doesn't work, I mean true communism, not Russian, Cuban, Chinese, or any of the other Communisms out there.

I don't really hate it, but I don't like it because I think it's unrealistic. It goes against human nature to share everything, in my opinion. It just doesn't work on a large scale.

Since you seem so enlightened can you tell me what human nature is? :)

Both "good" and militant communism are inherently evil, because both replace individual liberty, choice, and freedom with collective will, oppression, and conformity


Which is SO far worst then the idea of commercialization, capitlism (in more way then just the economic system), praising one over the many, money makes power, and business comforminty. Oh right, and despratism, let's not forget that.

No one in history has been able to create a truly communist nation as Marx saw it.
No one has tried. Lenin instituted a form of Machiavellian socialism rather than Marxism (it's in the name, United Soviet Socialist Republic, not Communist Republic). Mao was an anarchist who wanted a communist dictatorship that would be a transitory stage to anarchy. Castro was more anti-colonial than he was communist, and now he's just a dictator. North Korea is a Monarchy masqurading as a communist state and uses a Machiavellian socialism like the USSR had. There has never been any group in the world that has attempted a Marxist government, so you can't say what has never been attempted is impossible.

Which is SO far worst then the idea of commercialization, capitlism (in more way then just the economic system), praising one over the many, money makes power, and business comforminty. Oh right, and despratism, let's not forget that.
Marx did not consider any political system inherently evil. It was merely a mathematical progression to him, which is why he spent so much time studying capitalism to see where it would lead. According to Marx, governments would progress from tribalism to feudalism to capitalism to socialism and then to communism.

Most countries that are called communist today are really not. Not only do they not follow the ten attributes nessiccary to be considered communist. If you actually analyze the governments of Cuba, the USSR, China, and North Korea, you find they are not communist but feudal in nature. Russia and China have only recently begun down the progression towards capitalism.

If you look at the West, you'll find that there is no true capitalist state left. There are only socialist states. Sweden, France, Britain, Canada, and even the US (what do you think Social Security, Welfare, and Medicare/Medicaid is?) to name just a few are all socialist. That is evidence we're marching down the progression Marx forsaw.

I would argue that each for of government imparts values on the society while stripping away outdated ones. Tribalism teaches the strength of community and family. Feudalism teaches the strength of the stength of the nation. Capitalism teaches the worth of the individual. Socialism teaches the value of equality. Without these lessons, true Marxist communism cannot come about.

I have noticed a lot of hatred towards communists lately. Being a communist nation, I want to know why other nations hate communism.
Communism is a system of government in which people are entirely represented, classes (poor-middle-rich) are non-existent, pacifism is encouraged, education and health care are free for everyone, and freedom is valued.
What a load of crap. There isn't one communist nation that I would live in over my home country.

Since you seem so enlightened can you tell me what human nature is? :)
Human nature is greedy, lazy and cruel. People will do whatever they can to make their lives easier, or their work load lighter. They will maximize their "play time" whenever possible.

People will very rarely do even a little bit of work for no reward.

Contrary to Communist statements there are more than economic influences in the world. Power is a very attractive thing to people. Even if everyone has the same amount of stuff, you'll get a demagouge who can promise a group of people power over others, and that is an allure that can rarely be resisted.

Emotions also fuel people's actions. Emotions drive the modern evangelical-Christian movement, and unless someone has a plan to drive emotions away, they will always drive people.

Instinctual protective measures. This is where racism comes from. We can even see this occuring in people today. People associate with people who look like themselves, it's a result of the evolution that occured during the time of the tribal system, where if you looked different you are from a hostile tribe. This gets in the way of global unity.

And there are other things, I'm just to lazy to expound on them further.

I would argue that each for of government imparts values on the society while stripping away outdated ones. Tribalism teaches the strength of community and family. Feudalism teaches the strength of the stength of the nation. Capitalism teaches the worth of the individual. Socialism teaches the value of equality. Without these lessons, true Marxist communism cannot come about.

It depends on how you view capitalism. The idea of the wickedest men doing the wickedest things for the best of the people is a bad one, but much like democracy, I guess it's the best we have at the moment.

Thanks for the third party insight though, I hadn't had someone give me a view like that. . . Ever.

Human nature is greedy, lazy and cruel. People will do whatever they can to make their lives easier, or their work load lighter. They will maximize their "play time" whenever possible.

Human nature is also changable, believe it or not. Greed, laziness and "cruelty" as you say it, aren't always there. People will do genuenly good things to other (some excpecting it back, some not), and people will do cruel things to others (also, some excpecting it back, and some not), there's about a 50/50 split on the people. That sum cruelty. For greedy and laziness, why are their charities in the world, work-a-holics, or fire men? These people completely agains some or all of your statements.

Human nature is also changable, believe it or not. Greed, laziness and "cruelty" as you say it, aren't always there. People will do genuenly good things to other (some excpecting it back, some not), and people will do cruel things to others (also, some excpecting it back, and some not), there's about a 50/50 split on the people. That sum cruelty. For greedy and laziness, why are their charities in the world, work-a-holics, or fire men? These people completely agains some or all of your statements.
alas, I disagree. Human nature is hars wired, it's genetic. Human nature is a survival instinct.

No one does anything genuinely good. Everything is done expecting reciprocation, of some sort.

Communism has only killed 100 million people, lets give it another shot!

Thanks for the third party insight though, I hadn't had someone give me a view like that. . . Ever.
You're welcome. The pleasure's mine.

Human nature is greedy, lazy and cruel. People will do whatever they can to make their lives easier, or their work load lighter. They will maximize their "play time" whenever possible.
What a Puritanical and misguided statement. Are you from Oklahoma or are you just attending school there?

People will very rarely do even a little bit of work for no reward.
There are three flaws with this statement.

1) Communism does provide reward. Free healthcare, free education, free food, etc. The trade off is that you pay more in income taxes to get the rewards. Look at Norway or any of the other nordic countries. They pay 50-75% income tax, but they don't have to worry about retirement, about food, about tuition, about where their next meal is coming from. Communism is similar to this, though even more exaggerated.

2) Since you're attending college, I suggest you go down to the Sociology department and run that by them.

It has been shown that people will do a lot with very little reward. They merely rationalize and internalize the act.

Contrary to Communist statements there are more than economic influences in the world. Power is a very attractive thing to people. Even if everyone has the same amount of stuff, you'll get a demagouge who can promise a group of people power over others, and that is an allure that can rarely be resisted.
Money is merely a crystalyzation of the idea of power. It is quantified inequality. Money aids in the conscription of power; money does nothing to inhibit it. The solution is a system of checks and balances, not more money. Laisse-fairez leads to a dystopia.

Emotions also fuel people's actions. Emotions drive the modern evangelical-Christian movement, and unless someone has a plan to drive emotions away, they will always drive people.
Did you know that the frontal lobe suppresses other sections of the brain? Did you know the more active the frontal lobe, the more suppressed the rest of the brain is, including emotive centers? Discussion, thought, and reflection conquer emotions by virtue of mere neurology.

Instinctual protective measures. This is where racism comes from. We can even see this occuring in people today. People associate with people who look like themselves, it's a result of the evolution that occured during the time of the tribal system, where if you looked different you are from a hostile tribe. This gets in the way of global unity.
Not true in the least. Why do the Hutu hate the Tutsi? A conflict over arable land. Why do Southern whites hate blacks? Blacks performed labor that competed and replaced white labor. They formed the basis of the Southern economy and thus they're enslavement was rationalized and internalized into racism. It is class inequalities and class struggle that leads to hated, bigotry, and racism.

And there are other things, I'm just to lazy to expound on them further.
I guess you must be a communist, huh?

Communism has only killed 100 million people, lets give it another shot!
a very legitimate point.

Communism has only killed 100 million people, lets give it another shot!
How many has capitalism killed? Let's see, we now produce enough food to feed everyone on the planet. Because some people can't pay for food they don't get any (Third World) while others, who have money, get far more than they need (America). Every three seconds a child dies of starvation. There are 86,400 seconds in a day. That's 28,800 children a day dead of starvation. That's 10,512,000 children dead a year. That's not counting adults. That's not counting deaths by malnutrition. That's not counting deaths from lack of medicine. Even adjusting for the rise in population since capitalism took over in the nineteenth century, that's a lot of death at the hands of capitalism, with no end in sight.

What a Puritanical and misguided statement. Are you from Oklahoma or are you just attending school there?


It is a puritanical statement, but it's also a statement of someone who has dealt with people fairly often, and it is universal, even amongst very small children.

Or perhaps I'm attending school in Ohio and living there as well

1) Communism does provide reward. Free healthcare, free education, free food, etc. The trade off is that you pay more in income taxes to get the rewards. Look at Norway or any of the other nordic countries. They pay 50-75% income tax, but they don't have to worry about retirement, about food, about tuition, about where their next meal is coming from. Communism is similar to this, though even more exaggerated.


I'm not arguing against socialism, I'm against communism. There is a difference.



2) Since you're attending college, I suggest you go down to the Sociology department and run that by them.



how about my psych department. I got this statement from a professor.


It has been shown that people will do a lot with very little reward. They merely rationalize and internalize the act.


Money is merely a crystalyzation of the idea of power. It is quantified inequality. Money aids in the conscription of power; money does nothing to inhibit it. The solution is a system of checks and balances, not more money. Laisse-fairez leads to a dystopia.


Money does aid the conscription of power, but there are forms of power that are pure, and plain power, like having a pointy stick. That's a form of power, and if you can get a lot of folks to carry around pointy sticks in a world without a government to stop them...

I am not arguing for full laisse fairez capitalism. Just against communism.


Did you know that the frontal lobe suppresses other sections of the brain? Did you know the more active the frontal lobe, the more suppressed the rest of the brain is, including emotive centers? Discussion, thought, and reflection conquer emotions by virtue of mere neurology.


People don't always put their rational minds first. I happen to know lot's of people who do this. Maybe the evangelical Christians who voted for Bush should be consulted on this matter.



Not true in the least. Why do the Hutu hate the Tutsi? A conflict over arable land. Why do Southern whites hate blacks? Blacks performed labor that competed and replaced white labor. They formed the basis of the Southern economy and thus they're enslavement was rationalized and internalized into racism. It is class inequalities and class struggle that leads to hated, bigotry, and racism.


I'm saying that racism is an evolutionary result of this sort of thing.



I guess you must be a communist, huh?
No, I'm just human.

Communism has only killed 100 million people, lets give it another shot!

I'd add: ONLY STATE WHICH USED ATOM BOMB TO KILL CIVILIANS IS AMERICA.

SHE DID IT TWICE.

LETS GIVE HER ANOTHER SHOT.

and little things like: Vietnam, Iraq x2, Afganistan, supporting Jewish in masacrating and conquering Palestins territory. And bombardment of Serbia.
Supporting military hunts and dictators in south America, and her silent support for extermination of black people in north africa by muslims who sell cheap oil to US. Supporting and making puppet goverments in SE Asia, who're bruttaly masacrating their own people. American support to Putin in Čečenia case.

I belive that america killed quite more than 100 million people.
Be a proud american, be a butcher. Libety to do what ever you want to other.

Human nature is greedy, lazy and cruel. People will do whatever they can to make their lives easier, or their work load lighter. They will maximize their "play time" whenever possible.

People will very rarely do even a little bit of work for no reward.

Now, how do you know that this behaviour is hardwired into the human psyche? As opposed to cultural pressures forcing a person to behave in such a way?

I dont

I'd add: ONLY STATE WHICH USED ATOM BOMB TO KILL CIVILIANS IS AMERICA.

SHE DID IT TWICE.

LETS GIVE HER ANOTHER SHOT.

and little things like: Vietnam, Iraq x2, Afganistan, supporting Jewish in masacrating and conquering Palestins territory. And bombardment of Serbia.
Supporting military hunts and dictators in south America, and her silent support for extermination of black people in north africa by muslims who sell cheap oil to US. Supporting and making puppet goverments in SE Asia, who're bruttaly masacrating their own people. American support to Putin in Čečenia case.

I belive that america killed quite more than 100 million people.
Be a proud american, be a butcher. Libety to do what ever you want to other.

The atom bombs were dropped to save lives. And they probably wouldn't have been dropped if Stalin hadn't kept the Japanese peace offer secret.

Look it up, I'm sure some communist site says an exaggerated US global death toll. Rational historians place it nowhere near 100 million though.

So, here's a list of the USSR's ills. The invasion of Poland/Ukraine 1920, the invasion of Finland 1939/1940, Stalin's scouring of the soviet population, the soviet gulags, the soviet puppet governments in eastern europe in violation of the various treaty agreements, the gulaging of hundreds of thousands of German POWs after WWII, the chinese revolutions (cultural revolution and the like), the various latin american rebels supported, the Berlin wall, the Berlin blockade, the invasion of afghanistan, supporting the arabs trying to kill of the jews in trans-jordan, the Khmer Rouge in SE Asia, the attempts to put down the peaceful democratic revolutions in eastern europe, and this list in incomplete!

The list of the soviet's misdeeds is long and frightening, and only a misinformed fool could think that the US list is worse.

Now, how do you know that this behaviour is hardwired into the human psyche? As opposed to cultural pressures forcing a person to behave in such a way?
early childhood behaviors are the best bet.

I don't like Communism because it relies on violent revolution to come to power. I'm a Democratic Socialist. I don't feel that it's necessary to take over the military , execute the aristocracy, and force equal distribution of wealth. It's entirely possible to achieve the aims of Communsim one step at a time through democratic reform.

I don't like communism because I like MY money, MY car, MY house, and I don't want MY things getting taken away and given to somebody else.

People who said that human nature is about greed, cruelty and selfishness are right, but the difference between people is whether you embrace this human nature or fight it.

It is 'human nature' for corporations to want to screw their workers over whilst the lazy executives roll in money, but does that mean it is a good thing and we should build a system around supporting corporations doing this?

It is not 'human nature' to want to help the poor, sick and needy but is it wrong to do these things?

I'd add: ONLY STATE WHICH USED ATOM BOMB TO KILL CIVILIANS IS AMERICA.

SHE DID IT TWICE.

LETS GIVE HER ANOTHER SHOT.

and little things like: Vietnam, Iraq x2, Afganistan, supporting Jewish in masacrating and conquering Palestins territory. And bombardment of Serbia.
Supporting military hunts and dictators in south America, and her silent support for extermination of black people in north africa by muslims who sell cheap oil to US. Supporting and making puppet goverments in SE Asia, who're bruttaly masacrating their own people. American support to Putin in Čečenia case.

I belive that america killed quite more than 100 million people.
Be a proud american, be a butcher. Libety to do what ever you want to other.


That's damn right! Liberty to do whatever I want to anybody else and face the consequences, prison, heavy fines and what-not. Everything is cause and effect in this world and America is no exception. Think of the millions of people around the world who are benefitting from Americans' generosity in Human Rights during this huge earthquake over in Indonesia. If you don't like America, and you don't like me, then go ahead and be a communist if thats your thing, or be an anarcho-fascist, doesn't matter much to me. Just be a human being and help out in others time of need.

It is a puritanical statement, but it's also a statement of someone who has dealt with people fairly often, and it is universal, even amongst very small children.
That's funny, because every small child I've been around has been keen on giving gifts to people. Even in adults, think how much money is given to charities each year?

I'd like to point out a flaw in your argument. If people are inherently greedy, why give them a tool of greed, money?

Or perhaps I'm attending school in Ohio and living there as well
There's that as well. ^_^

I'm not arguing against socialism, I'm against communism. There is a difference.
So what part of communism don't you like that's also not a part of socialism?


how about my psych department. I got this statement from a professor.


It has been shown that people will do a lot with very little reward. They merely rationalize and internalize the act.
Maybe you mistyped because that's my quote.

Money does aid the conscription of power, but there are forms of power that are pure, and plain power, like having a pointy stick. That's a form of power, and if you can get a lot of folks to carry around pointy sticks in a world without a government to stop them...
That's a specious argument. People with pointy sticks are stopped by the police. Police aren't abolished under communism.

People don't always put their rational minds first. I happen to know lot's of people who do this. Maybe the evangelical Christians who voted for Bush should be consulted on this matter.
Education is the greatest weapon against reactionary ignorance ever invented. Education, by the way, is free under communism and since communism calls for athiesm, the education won't entail religion, ie christianity.

I'm saying that racism is an evolutionary result of this sort of thing.
I'm saying class antagonism leads to an evolutionary response of violence and hatred. You're saying that evolution stimulates a response of violence and hatred to class antagonism. Either way, Marx was right.

No, I'm just human.
Then perhaps you should kill the Buddha?

How many has capitalism killed? Let's see, we now produce enough food to feed everyone on the planet. Because some people can't pay for food they don't get any (Third World) while others, who have money, get far more than they need (America). Every three seconds a child dies of starvation. There are 86,400 seconds in a day. That's 28,800 children a day dead of starvation. That's 10,512,000 children dead a year. That's not counting adults. That's not counting deaths by malnutrition. That's not counting deaths from lack of medicine. Even adjusting for the rise in population since capitalism took over in the nineteenth century, that's a lot of death at the hands of capitalism, with no end in sight.

And what types of nations are these children dieing in? Oh thats right, COMMUNIST NATIONS. Yeah we produce more than any other country in the world, but we also give more then any other country in the world. Think your little commie hell hole is a paradise? Dont make me laugh, I will fight socialism, facism, and communism till my dieing day. God did not make all men equal, all men are not equal. Some are willing to work hard to get ahead, others arnt. Why should it be my duty to carry lazy people on my shoulders. Those who work had, get more, US is the hardest working country on the planet, thus, we have the most. We share what we can spare, willingly, but if you try to take it by force, then you are met by the meanest bunch of SOB's you will ever face.

"God did not make all men equal, Mr. Colt did."

I don't like Communism because it relies on violent revolution to come to power. I'm a Democratic Socialist. I don't feel that it's necessary to take over the military , execute the aristocracy, and force equal distribution of wealth. It's entirely possible to achieve the aims of Communsim one step at a time through democratic reform.
Communism requires revolution, like any redistribution of power. That revolution need not be violent, as Ghandi showed us.

You cannot achieve the aims of communism one step at a time. To do that you must debate, discuss, and comprimise. When you comprimise, you both lose, but communism loses more. Note the '60's and '70's.

And what types of nations are these children dieing in? Oh thats right, COMMUNIST NATIONS. Yeah we produce more than any other country in the world, but we also give more then any other country in the world. Think your little commie hell hole is a paradise? Dont make me laugh, I will fight socialism, facism, and communism till my dieing day. God did not make all men equal, all men are not equal. Some are willing to work hard to get ahead, others arnt. Why should it be my duty to carry lazy people on my shoulders. Those who work had, get more, US is the hardest working country on the planet, thus, we have the most. We share what we can spare, willingly, but if you try to take it by force, then you are met by the meanest bunch of SOB's you will ever face.
South America and Africa are the most poverty stricken continents on the planet. Neither have communist governments, America made sure of that.

Right now there are somewhere around 11,000,000 children starving in the US. Are they lazy, or just communist?

Many, many, many studies have shown that if you work hard, you will not get ahead. A family of four needs both parents working two minimum wage jobs just to make ends meet. You don't get ahead living hand to mouth. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. That is how capitalism works.

Right now there are somewhere around 11,000,000 children starving in the US. Are they lazy, or just communist?


Are you sure about that number? Maybe I should ask the definition of "starving". I could be wrong but that seems really high.

South America and Africa are the most poverty stricken continents on the planet. Neither have communist governments, America made sure of that.

Right now there are somewhere around 11,000,000 children starving in the US. Are they lazy, or just communist?

Many, many, many studies have shown that if you work hard, you will not get ahead. A family of four needs both parents working two minimum wage jobs just to make ends meet. You don't get ahead living hand to mouth. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. That is how capitalism works.

Oh really? Is that what you think?
I happen to know for a FACT how it works, not just what some commie propaganda tells me.
I know, because I've done it. When I was little, I was hungry a time or two, sorta my parents fault, but not really. My dad is a schemer, always trying differnt get rich quick things, they havnt worked, and finally he calmed down, found a decent job, and got back on track. Now he works hard, makes decent money, he's a machinist. And me, im working my way through school, found a good job that works with me to get me through. No goverment help, I dont need help, I dont want help.
Capitalism works, by the hard workers getting ahead, and giving thier children a decent shot at life. How do you think the rich got rich? They worked thier asses off for it, and were smart about it. The poor got poor, by not working thier asses off, and not being smart about it.
You fight for what you get, and get what you earn.

11 million children starving in the US? Are you on crack? Theres only 30 million children in the US to begin with, 1 in 3 are not starving. Your just pulling numbers out of your ass, licking them off, then trying to act like you know what the hell your talking about.

Ahh your talking about that USDA study lol
It states that 36 million people are at risk of maybe being hungry at some point, or are at least insecure about it. And 11 million of those are children, aucutally numbers are about 1/10 of that.

Honestly, this redundant discussion is still flaring here? I swear I posted a bit in this, but I can't find my input. Maybe it was one of the gazillion other "why do all you greedy heartless capitalist monsters hate communism" threads.

Anyway here's a little advice for any aspiring commies out there:

If you don't like capitalism - PISS OFF TO CUBA. Enjoy your daily government-issue breadcrums. That is if your bourgeois guts aren't split out in the streets by those freedom-loving collectivists, who are intent on redistributing your body parts fairly around their wonderful island.

Honestly, this redundant discussion is still flaring here? I swear I posted a bit in this, but I can't find my input. Maybe it was one of the gazillion other "why do all you greedy heartless capitalist monsters hate communism" threads.

Anyway here's a little advice for any aspiring commies out there:

If you don't like capitalism - PISS OFF TO CUBA. Enjoy your daily government-issue breadcrums. That is if your bourgeois guts aren't split out in the streets by those freedom-loving collectivists, who are intent on redistributing your body parts fairly around their wonderful island.

Nicely put

So what you're saying, Teradoc, is that you started out middle class and after all your hard work you're now middle class? Tell me, did you parent own their house (having a mortgage means owning, btw)? Did they have a car? Did you go to state university (meaning funded partially with public funds, aka welfare)?

I'd also like to point out the anecdotal evidence does not trump impirical evidence.

11 million children starving in the US? Are you on crack? Theres only 30 million children in the US to begin with, 1 in 3 are not starving. Your just pulling numbers out of your ass, licking them off, then trying to act like you know what the hell your talking about.
US Census Bureau Data (http://ferret.bls.census.gov/macro/032004/pov/new46_100125_11.htm)

See, impirical data. I was wrong. I said 33% percent when it's "only" 16% of American children that are starving.

Figures are acurate but not compelling. Plus, they can easily twisted to support a false argument. I'm sure I could statisticly prove that all monkeys are purple.

do it.

Communism is idealistic, yet inefficient. Hippies thought it up and Capitalists destroy it. But that's the view of only one Right-Wing, Capitalist country.

I don't like communism because I like MY money, MY car, MY house, and I don't want MY things getting taken away and given to somebody else.

So, according to you, if the government came and took. . . Oh say, your car and your money, and you had money to eat, drink and live well enough on the new system, that's bad?

Let me ask you one question, in this system, if your house burns down. . . Is it going to be MY hunger, MY cold nights and MY days on the street, or would you prefer something else?

The problem with communism is that it's a completely asinine method of government when it comes to the economy. Actually, it's all-around asinine, but the economy is the biggest area of idiocy.

Take an economics class. You'll be familiarized with a chap named Adam Smith, more or less the father of economics. Adam Smith had this thing called the Invisible Hand Theory, which says that nations and economies succeed because of people wanting to increase their socio-economic standing. It's not exactly selfishness, but rather competition and incentive to succeed.

If a brain surgeon makes the same amount as a shit-shoveler, why should the brain surgeon care about doing his job well? At the end of the day, he is no better off for his hard work and many years of study. So since everyone gets the same wages and benefits, people might as well all be janitors and grease monkeys rather than lawyers, doctors or engineers.

So you see? There is no incentive for people to succeed in communism. That is why it always ultimately fails on any scale larger than a kibbutz. It is idealistic drivel.

Communism is idealistic, yet inefficient. Hippies thought it up and Capitalists destroy it. But that's the view of only one Right-Wing, Capitalist country.
Hippies came about in the 1960's America. Communism came about in 1860's Germany.

Is it *really* just me that would like to be a brain surgeon or a lawyer rather than a 'shit shoveler' regardless of who earns more? A lot of the highest paid jobs are the easiest and most satisfying as well. Some people just seem obsessed with getting more money.

Is it *really* just me that would like to be a brain surgeon or a lawyer rather than a 'shit shoveler' regardless of who earns more? A lot of the highest paid jobs are the easiest and most satisfying as well. Some people just seem obsessed with getting more money.

Oh really??? LOL
Man you people are dumb. "I dont want to work hard, so gimmie all that guys money, he worked hard for it, but who cares!" Fucking commies

The problem with communism is that it's a completely asinine method of government when it comes to the economy. Actually, it's all-around asinine, but the economy is the biggest area of idiocy.

Take an economics class. You'll be familiarized with a chap named Adam Smith, more or less the father of economics. Adam Smith had this thing called the Invisible Hand Theory, which says that nations and economies succeed because of people wanting to increase their socio-economic standing. It's not exactly selfishness, but rather competition and incentive to succeed.
He also thought supply created demand along with other asinine ideas. Although Adam Smith was one of the original economists, modern economics is based off of Keyne's work. Keyne's work is based off, guess who, Marx's work.

If a brain surgeon makes the same amount as a shit-shoveler, why should the brain surgeon care about doing his job well? At the end of the day, he is no better off for his hard work and many years of study. So since everyone gets the same wages and benefits, people might as well all be janitors and grease monkeys rather than lawyers, doctors or engineers.
If money is your only reason for becoming a doctor, you're going to make one poor doctor.

So, according to you, if the government came and took. . . Oh say, your car and your money, and you had money to eat, drink and live well enough on the new system, that's bad?

Let me ask you one question, in this system, if your house burns down. . . Is it going to be MY hunger, MY cold nights and MY days on the street, or would you prefer something else?
The point is that he made an investment, and used his talents and capabilities to make his life more comfortable. He exchanged his efforts for these things. There are more things to make life comfortable than subsistance.

So, according to you, if the government came and took. . . Oh say, your car and your money, and you had money to eat, drink and live well enough on the new system, that's bad?

Let me ask you one question, in this system, if your house burns down. . . Is it going to be MY hunger, MY cold nights and MY days on the street, or would you prefer something else?
what the hell does this mean?
If a brain surgeon makes the same amount as a shit-shoveler, why should the brain surgeon care about doing his job well? At the end of the day, he is no better off for his hard work and many years of study.
you wanna be a shit-shoveler? i thought so.
if you had two choices: shit shoveler or brain surgeon for the same hours and same pay, which would you pick? i sure as hell wouldn't be a shit shoveler if i could avoid it

Oh really??? LOL
Man you people are dumb. "I dont want to work hard, so gimmie all that guys money, he worked hard for it, but who cares!" Fucking commies

Uh...what has that got to do with what I posted? Or are you just a moron?

you wanna be a shit-shoveler? i thought so.
if you had two choices: shit shoveler or brain surgeon for the same hours and same pay, which would you pick? i sure as hell wouldn't be a shit shoveler if i could avoid it
Perhaps if we improve the previous statement. Would you rather be a brain surgeon or a burger flipper? The brain surgeon puts time and effort into bettering himself by going through many hard years of college, he works odd hours and is often on call for emergencies all the time. While the burger flipper just got his job, and has pre-set hours. Which one would you take if they offered equal pay?

If I had the expertise to be a brain surgeon I probably would be one rather than a burger flipper. Burger flipping is monotomously dull and unrewarding.

Perhaps if we improve the previous statement. Would you rather be a brain surgeon or a burger flipper? The brain surgeon puts time and effort into bettering himself by going through many hard years of college, he works odd hours and is often on call for emergencies all the time. While the burger flipper just got his job, and has pre-set hours. Which one would you take if they offered equal pay?
well of course, under an ideal communism, they perhaps would have the same hours
after all, brain surgeon isn't decided by a few hours unlike other medical things
frankly, i think most people would find being a brain surgeon simply more fulfilling
after all, you dont see brain surgeons retiring after a few years (for many certainly could) and becoming burger flippers for the hell of it; they stay on as surgeons

The problem with socialists and commies is that they fail to appreciate one important concept. Wages are what you earn for giving up part of YOUR LIFE. Yes, I could be doing many things, but if I show up at work and earn my pay, that money is mine in exchange for the irretrievable piece of my LIFE that I can never get back. My wage should be figured in accordance with the value both of the work I do (basically, what people are willing to pay) and the value of my life thus far invested in being able to do that job (something I have to negotiate acceptable terms on, but we can start wwith my student loan balance). No one would ever invest the time (those of you who aren't one or don't know any doctors don't seem to get this) to become a doctor if you could earn the same pay flipping burgers or hammering nails. Why, because even when money isn't an issue, having people's lives in your hands is a tremendous responsibility, more than most people can handle. It takes dedication, skill and a lot of training, along with tons of very hard work, and it is emotionaly draining and sometimes, in spite of your best efforts people die anyway. Their families will always blame you to some extent, and you will always feel you might have done one or two things different to save them. If you overcook that burger or hammer the wrong nail, you can easily fix it. Once someone is dead, that's it. We pay doctors so much because they assume that risk and the attendant responsibility.

Bottom line, not all people are equal (but their RIGHTS under the law are), and their abilities aren't either. Some people's work is simply MORE IMPORTANT than others, and they need to be rewarded in accordance with that, or society is in fact NOT FAIR. Paying shit shovelers the same as brain surgeons is NOT FAIR, not even close. Wages, like all prices, reflect the value that society places on the good or service in question. Shit shovelers earn what society deems shit shovelling to be worth, whereas brain surgeons earn what brain surgery is worth. If there were 200 million brain surgeons and one shit shoveler, maybe things would be different, but given the ease of aquiring the skills to shovel shit versus those necessary to work on brains, it is not bloody likely.

Communism perverts basic morality precisely because it ignores the tremendous differences between various people's contributions while deeming all labor to be of equal value. This has a crippling effect on values and leads to corruption, shirking and decreasing returns from every area of endeavor. People stop trying when they can't get more for their efforts. Why take on more risk and responsibility when you can't earn what it's worth? The authorities require ever more brutal policies to keep up production, which further degrades morale and finally the economy crumbles under the extra weight of law enforcement and intelligence gathering costs (as well as pervasive hatred of the government). When people can earn what their work is worth, you don't even need to ask them to do it, they'll choose it freely, no gun to their head required. Face it folks, communism just can't work.

I have personally had half a million dollars worth of heart surgery, and I don't begrudge those guys a single dollar. Because now, I can shovel my own shit if necessary, and that is priceless.

Hayek and Friedman and many others discredited Keynes, and world history discredited Marx...if brain surgery is easier than shit shoveling...!?! I can't even think of a witty remark, because I am literaly OVERWHELMED with the idiocy of that remark.

I'll try to nip this in the bud...no one should call earning a certain wage a right. I base my assertion of equality of rights under the law on classical liberal ideas about natural rights. These are generally negative rights, in the sense that you have the right *not* to be killed, assaulted, robbed, raped, defrauded out of the money you have earned or otherwise have force initiated against you. This gets hairy when one starts considering to what extent others or the government are required by these rights (should they be written into law) to act to prevent said actons against you, and in so doing, to what extent can they harm the perpetrator both in the process of stopping the action and in the punishment given for the commision of the crime.

That said, these are debates that only happen in free societies. When the state assumes total control, as in communism, individuals are considered inferior to the group as a whole, so they have no rights where they might conflict with the will of the state. Look at the hundreds of millions of communism's victims for an idea of the value they placed on lives or individual rights. So, to speak of "rights" in a statist context is to speak soley of their abscence.

Why do I hate Communism? Perhaps because Communists, instead of doing something even remotely productive, decided to try to FORCE a political, social and economic system on everyone else, even though said system fails on large scales time and time again.

I think most people hate Communism b/c it makes u think. In theory communist have everything they need, they work for the better of the people. Therefore ur not working to gain, ur working to better. Most people do not like this. Gaining isn't everything in life, there more meaning, there's a greater deep to life. Capitalism u work to "gain" but u never truely gain. Let me ask u something who really owns ur house? who really owns ur car? Is it not the banks? Of course with time you can pay off the banks and have it be ur own, but by then how old do u think you will be? The only reason Capitalism has lasted as long as it as it b/c all the freedoms that comes with it. However do to some reason world events most of these freedoms are being lost to be replace with better "safety" which again is just another illusion. It seem that Capitalism is due for a heavy blow to its rep. The reason Communism has not succeeded is one thing......GREED....... human greed keep us from enjoy a pradise where all we do is help better society, and futher expand MEANING. People always seem to want more then they need, these keeps them from being happy with what they got they want more and more and more..... and for what? usually people who do not like Communism that is there main reason "well, i want my own things." A person wealth should be measured by there brains and ideas, not there wallets. Military Dictatorship's are wrong, but they are need. The problem comes when the man in charge gets too much power and forget wat he is fighting for. If people would willing give in Communism then there be no need for a revolution, or a military force whoever scince this is not the case force is needed. however when a communism state is set then the military force should be dismantle and the search for meaning to start right away.


but w/e u think or agree with can't we all just get along :fluffle:

1)The atom bombs were dropped to save lives. And they probably wouldn't have been dropped if Stalin hadn't kept the Japanese peace offer secret.

2) Look it up, I'm sure some communist site says an exaggerated US global death toll. Rational historians place it nowhere near 100 million though.

3) The list of the soviet's misdeeds is long and frightening, and only a misinformed fool could think that the US list is worse.

1) :eek: o... hahahaahahaa.... I've never heard such a stupidity. So it's better to destroy two cities and it's all population in horrible way, than let some US soliders die. And yes, it's all commies fault, they're guilty for everything.

OK, what wrong with you people???

2 & 3) I don't read communist sites...but I'm sure America is better than Russia, in fooling its own nation. Belive what you wish, yours president repesents you good.

1) That's damn right! Liberty to do whatever I want to anybody else and face the consequences, prison, heavy fines and what-not.

2) Everything is cause and effect in this world and America is no exception. Think of the millions of people around the world who are benefitting from Americans' generosity in Human Rights during this huge earthquake over in Indonesia.

3) If you don't like America, and you don't like me, then go ahead and be a communist if thats your thing, or be an anarcho-fascist, doesn't matter much to me. Just be a human being and help out in others time of need.

1) How is it called that prison camp where you're making "terrorists" suffer? Some photos leaked recently... I wonder who will be responsibile for that?
And why your generals don't answer to international millitary court in Den Haag? I wonder in how big villa are living yours generals who threw napalm on vietnam civilian villages? And will US soliders in Iraq be judged for shooting children and civilians. As your soliders told, they listen satanic metal in their tanks and squish everything on they way rallying cross the Iraq cities.
"face the consequences, prison, heavy fines and what-not." yeah, right.

2) Well America takes, America gives. First is huge, second is tiny.
I know how Bechtel comes to our land and by corruption takes national bussineses of making highways, but our corporations could do that, but they don't have such a power to corrupt. America did some good, I can't say oposite, but you represent yourself like worlds cop, but you're criminal as well.

3) I have nothing special against america, I just despize it, you as well. But don't take that personal, If I, or my nation could be in your position, we would be equal bad as you are. he,he...

Salute!

Just look at my native Cuba,
it is no socialist democratic paradise,
I keep trying to point this fact out to others
and they still dont beleive it, look at
the Cuban boat people on anything that floats,
rafts, inner tubes, floating trucks,
across 90 miles of shark infested waters,
the comfortable government ones that defect,
artist, profesionals, doctors, etc etc etc,
how many defections do we see the other way.


I too am cuban, and the one thing i've realized from my trips to the islands and my life here in the US is that most of those cubans kill to go back. Why wouldn't they at least there they have there family and a unity that we do not have here.Here my neighbroos don't even know my name, over there they know each other and live for something else. yes they are miserble but they are even more so when they get here. and futhermore most of the cubans down in Miami are just pissed off b/c they lost there land to the goverment which again brings up that people are just greedy. I say capitilism is not the answer and until people STOP BEING GREEDY until then, communism is not the answer. but one day when we truely evolve then maybe it will be

Ever thought Cuba had no chance of evolving into a democratic socialist paradise because it's been under threat of US invasion for the last 40 years? The US sanctions are mostly responsible for the state of Cuba's economy and were part of the reason why Castro turned to the USSR and China for help back in the 60s.

I think most people hate Communism b/c it makes u think. In theory communist have everything they need, they work for the better of the people. Therefore ur not working to gain, ur working to better. Most people do not like this. Gaining isn't everything in life, there more meaning, there's a greater deep to life. Capitalism u work to "gain" but u never truely gain. Let me ask u something who really owns ur house? who really owns ur car? Is it not the banks? Of course with time you can pay off the banks and have it be ur own, but by then how old do u think you will be? The only reason Capitalism has lasted as long as it as it b/c all the freedoms that comes with it. However do to some reason world events most of these freedoms are being lost to be replace with better "safety" which again is just another illusion. It seem that Capitalism is due for a heavy blow to its rep. The reason Communism has not succeeded is one thing......GREED....... human greed keep us from enjoy a pradise where all we do is help better society, and futher expand MEANING. People always seem to want more then they need, these keeps them from being happy with what they got they want more and more and more..... and for what? usually people who do not like Communism that is there main reason "well, i want my own things." A person wealth should be measured by there brains and ideas, not there wallets. Military Dictatorship's are wrong, but they are need. The problem comes when the man in charge gets too much power and forget wat he is fighting for. If people would willing give in Communism then there be no need for a revolution, or a military force whoever scince this is not the case force is needed. however when a communism state is set then the military force should be dismantle and the search for meaning to start right away.


but w/e u think or agree with can't we all just get along :fluffle:

excellent post. my thoughts exactly. i also think that people dislike communism partly because they are scared of the unknown: people are wholly used to capitalsim and most likely find it hard to imagine living under another, like communism. i certainly find this hard. the fact that one is used to something does not make it best, or right.

that post also made me link two things that i hadn't realised before: communism and Rousseau. interesting...

Ever thought Cuba had no chance of evolving into a democratic socialist paradise because it's been under threat of US invasion for the last 40 years? The US sanctions are mostly responsible for the state of Cuba's economy and were part of the reason why Castro turned to the USSR and China for help back in the 60s.



Cubans here in the US are treated as second class citizens. Heres why.... If you are an American Citizen then u have the right to travel where ever you want for as long as you want. However we can not travel to cuba longer then 2 weeks and with 100 dollar limit a day. these seems to limit my right as an american and it also shows cubans that the US are pigs and creates more hatered. So yea cuba can't be paradise but its b/c the US does not want any trade with the nation with stops almost anyother country to trade with it otehr the fellow communist country's cand Vennzula which is slowing turning to the next cuba, however b/c they have oil and are a OPECT member the US don't not want to stop trade or start a "fight." The US is just pissed at cuba b/c it could not do what id did to putero rico. WE HAVE STAYED INDEPENTED AND FOR BETTER OR WORST WE WILL STAY INDEPENTED OF THE US :mad:

Communism makes you think eh? About what? How the government takes what you earn, spends what it wants, and lets you have whatever it thinks you deserve of what's left. Cubans who escape to the US want to go back? GO!!!!!! GO NOW!!!!!!! You can leave. As a US citizen, you are free to travel, you can get on a plane and go. Maybe you have to stop in Mexico first, dang, but there you are, back in Cuba after a layover. So go. That is an option that the people you left back in Cuba don't have. No citizen in a communist state has the option of leaving, 'cause they BELONG to the state, they aren't free. Their labor and it's fruits belong to the state, so they aren't allowed to go where they want, because it would decrease the state's revenue.

You are deluded, communism is SLAVERY to the state. What is the difference between a plantation owner getting as much labor out of you as he can, then giving you the bare minimum for you to survive out of what he gets for your labor, and the state doing the same, but on a much larger scale. That is what communism does. You idiots have never thought about it, and your complete lack of insight into basic human nature is evident in the posts you submitted (the last few on this page, Red Guard is just consumed by an insane denial of reality). Capitalism lets you LIVE FOR YOURSELF and whatever you choose to do with your life, because Capitalism assumes that you belong to no one but yourself! That is freedom. Getting some food and shelter and knowing your nieghbor while the government makes all the decisions about your life and how it should be lived is NOT freedom, but it IS tyranny.

What everyone keeps ignoring is that the Soviet Union and other Stalinist and Maoist nations were never socialist (and therefore could never have progressed to communism), since a small revolutionary party took power in every case, rather than a mass rising of the working class.

Communism is totally democratic and allows unlimited political freedom - but this can't happen unless the masses take power rather than a party - in the latter case, a self-serving bureaucracy rather than the people ruled.

The idea that communism is about the state telling you how to run your lives is absurd. Anyone who's actually read Marxist literature ( i recommend www.marxists.org ) will know that communism is when there is no longer a state, and production is run by autonomous local workers' committees in the most democratic possible sense. Stalinism was as much a perversion of this ideal as the Crusades were of Christianity.

Greed will not stop communism from happening - the majority of people lose out under Capitalism (read Marx's "Wages, Price and Profit" or Adam Smith's "Wealth of nations"), so surely their 'greed' would cause them to overthrow this system? Anyway, greed is not human nature, but animal nature, and it is only the artificial competition between humans under capitalism which compels people to believe in such an unjust system of production.