NationStates Jolt Archive

Why is the world so anti-Communism? What the big fucking deal? Communism states that the state controls everything, but no one has any wants because they're provided for by the state. This is the ideal of Communism. So why are all these capitalist pigs so afraid of something that will make them better. Capitalism perpetuates mankinds two major failings Greed and Arrogance. With Communism these traits are downsized in an effort to eliminate them. Yes Stalin, Mao Zong, and Castro kinda had a thing called a power trip but this is the exception not the rule. So all you capitolists out there take a good long look at our "wonderful" capitolistic democratic nation and then look at China which is up and coming in teh economic, military and international world. So which ship do you want to be on? Ths sink old fogey capitilistic tug boat or the state of the art sea liner Communism. Take a good look.

Ok say every attempt at comunism ever is the exception and the rule is something we really really really want to work because it's sooo nice (or more likely because you're bitter about everyone who earns more than you and you want to get even you may even call them pigs)?
China is'nt a first-world nation they're the world's biggest NIC (Newly Industrialized Country) if they're a sea liner it's a steam powered one.
Under classical Marxist theory the State is supposed to dissolve eventually. But you see people will always be greedy and the greedeist in Communism rise to the top and gain control of the means of production and unlike in capitalism you can't compete or refuse to buy hteir product or work for them because now there is no market. You're trapped till the revolution comes. I think that's the problem us capitalist pigs have with communism more or less.

Well, causing the death of around if not over 100 million people doesn't help.

Plus, if you look at the communist countries nowadays there not exactly places one wishes to live in.

This thread is right below the You can'r defend Communism thread. Anyone else think that's funny. (though this is probably the response thread.)

look at China which is up and coming in teh economic, military and international world. So which ship do you want to be on?

People’s Republic of China: Continuing Abuses Under A New Leadership (http://web.amnesty.org/report2004/chn-summary-eng)

Yeah, I'm pretty sure I'd like to stay in Canada, where not only does the government provide me with nationalized healthcare and social support, but government agents don't visit me in the middle of the night and taser me in the crotch because I made a "subversive" comment in a chat room.

It is, ofcourse, a personal preference.

Why is the world so anti-Communism? What the big fucking deal? Communism states that the state controls everything, but no one has any wants because they're provided for by the state. This is the ideal of Communism. So why are all these capitalist pigs so afraid of something that will make them better. Capitalism perpetuates mankinds two major failings Greed and Arrogance. With Communism these traits are downsized in an effort to eliminate them. Yes Stalin, Mao Zong, and Castro kinda had a thing called a power trip but this is the exception not the rule. So all you capitolists out there take a good long look at our "wonderful" capitolistic democratic nation and then look at China which is up and coming in teh economic, military and international world. So which ship do you want to be on? Ths sink old fogey capitilistic tug boat or the state of the art sea liner Communism. Take a good look.

The fundamental flaw in communism is that no government, no matter how large, can possibly have as much information and power to manage an economy as the populace as a whole has. No matter how smart or numerous the bureaucrats, they can't possibly have the knowledge to efficiently distribute the resources of a nation. Even if they did, it would be a waste of effort because the result would be largely the same as what a free(doesn't cost anything) market would determine, possibly without the nepotism and hereditary class status.

Of course I could've started with the Labor Theory of Value, but that'd be a little bit more diferent.

PS. China is communist in name only, it's much more like fascism than communism. It's only growing so fast because it has immense human and natural resources and hadn't properly industrialized because of communism and before that feudalism and now is reaping the fruits of industrialization.

China is not a good country to live in. If your in the country (non-urban areas), you have to basically farm. The only choices you have is to farm or move to the city. The cities are stricken with a 50% unemployement, so you would be crazy to move into a city unless you are already rich, which farmers have a hard time becoming.
The reason why people like me are anti-communist is because under a communism, you can not try to succeed. The state (or "people") own your life. You can not work harder to try to have a better life. The state acts like it has a higher claim over your own life then you do, stealing what you worked hard for and rightfully earned for the inneffective and lazy. But morally, every individual should own their own life, and be able to keep what they can rightfully earn, even if it is billions while other people starve (the ironic thing is more people starve in communist (attempt) countries then capitalist). Greed is not a bad thing. Greed is nothing but the desire to be able to have what you earn.

Why is the world so anti-Communism? What the big fucking deal? Communism states that the state controls everything, but no one has any wants because they're provided for by the state. This is the ideal of Communism. So why are all these capitalist pigs so afraid of something that will make them better. Capitalism perpetuates mankinds two major failings Greed and Arrogance. With Communism these traits are downsized in an effort to eliminate them. Yes Stalin, Mao Zong, and Castro kinda had a thing called a power trip but this is the exception not the rule. So all you capitolists out there take a good long look at our "wonderful" capitolistic democratic nation and then look at China which is up and coming in teh economic, military and international world. So which ship do you want to be on? Ths sink old fogey capitilistic tug boat or the state of the art sea liner Communism. Take a good look.

If you stay on NS long, you will be a capitalist.

I am not going to say why, but I am relatively sure of it.

...but government agents don't visit me in the middle of the night and taser me in the crotch because I made a "subversive" comment in a chat room.

When is the taser-to-the-crotch feature finally going to be added to NS? Some of us have been waiting for it for a long time, but despite the promises of the Admin team, there still seems to be little movement on that front.

Why is the world so anti-Communism? What the big fucking deal? Communism states that the state controls everything, but no one has any wants because they're provided for by the state. This is the ideal of Communism. So why are all these capitalist pigs so afraid of something that will make them better. Capitalism perpetuates mankinds two major failings Greed and Arrogance. With Communism these traits are downsized in an effort to eliminate them. Yes Stalin, Mao Zong, and Castro kinda had a thing called a power trip but this is the exception not the rule. So all you capitolists out there take a good long look at our "wonderful" capitolistic democratic nation and then look at China which is up and coming in teh economic, military and international world. So which ship do you want to be on? Ths sink old fogey capitilistic tug boat or the state of the art sea liner Communism. Take a good look.
your ignorance is not just rediculous, its quite sad.
first off name one communist leader who has not been an 'exception to the rule', every leader of a statist regime is a tyrant.
second off why is it so bad...well hmmmmm how about millions of dead ukrainians and jews, how about the masses of poor in north korea, how about the corruption, how about the militarism.
lastly china has serious problems, and is mostly under a market in economy. communism has created and excacerbated problems like polution, class differences etc (yers in china class differences have grown and not shrunk over the last 50 yrs).

next time you post please research the facts and think about what your gonna say, because this kind of drivel is useless

If China is the only pro-communism example you guys could find, I understand why there's so many pro-capitalist on the forums...

Now, the "Oh my God Communism kill people" argument. Do you really tell me that you capitalist-lover actually can sleep at night thinking that the law of O/D, free market et capitalism as a whole doesn't kill nobody ?!?

There's countries in Africa which suffer severe malnutrition problems in a large part of the population, but yet EXPORT food. In the British Empire of India in the XIXth century, the army just fool around and cut lot of tisserands' thumb because the local production was competiting with the metropolitan textile industry (Okay, they don't necessarely die from that but that's ugly).

Right now all around the world, there's people dying because they are not wealthy enough to have the RIGHT to healthcare. During many years, cures for illnesses like paludism was almost inexistant, because the ill was in a large majority African or other poor people, so the pharmaceutical industry didn't see the rentabiliy of developping cures. Don't tell me that capitalism didn't have killed as people as communism.

Basically, I don't even know if we could say that communism actually had killed people, dictatorship and authoritarian state kill people, but you could find those bloody regime in capitalist or communist version. I've never heard of a democratic form of communism (I means, real democratic, let say like France, U.K. or US, but communist). Putting blame on communism is like saying that we all should ban cars and use horses because car accident has killed more people than horse accident.

In capitalism you don't have the chance to succeed, the society only make you think you have it. You could suceed, but it is not the fruit of your labor, entrepreneurship and free market. Trust me, I live in one of the poorer section of my city, people around me, who live on welfare for the majority, don't have a real chance to succeed. For saying a so-called chance exist, it would mean that everybody can get the same success from the same effort, but capitalist life is that some people gonna brake their back all their life in shops or meprised job without earning so much cash while children of the high society will found themselve CEO or on the board of some trust without putting the half of the energy that the proletarian a the bottom of the hierarchy put to barely earn his subsistance. Call that a chance to suceed if you want. Why people should succeed because people near them succeed before ? THAT is nepotism.

Beside, I'm not sure the Chinese govermnent really steal things to worker to give it the neighouring lazy dumbass, I think they steal things to the worker, then just shot the lazy neighbour.

Finally, I cannot really conceptualize what kind of work make moral the earning of billions, but maybe I'm just not bright enough to figure it out.

China is not a good country to live in. If your in the country (non-urban areas), you have to basically farm. The only choices you have is to farm or move to the city. The cities are stricken with a 50% unemployement, so you would be crazy to move into a city unless you are already rich, which farmers have a hard time becoming.

Correction, 10% and going down. And it's not too bad. Imagine everything in the US costing around 3 times more. That's China for you. I'm not sure about Hong Kong.

So just imagine you're a minimum wage man in America buying things that cost 3 times as much. Welcome to China!

When is the taser-to-the-crotch feature finally going to be added to NS? Some of us have been waiting for it for a long time, but despite the promises of the Admin team, there still seems to be little movement on that front.

Yeah, they're having a bit of trouble with that one. NS Admin was all ready to go, but then Jolt said that it would take up too much bandwidth. Max Barry's talking with Jolt now to try to get taser-to-the-crotch functionality, but it could be a while - you know how Jolt can be. :]

your ignorance is not just rediculous, its quite sad.
first off name one communist leader who has not been an 'exception to the rule', every leader of a statist regime is a tyrant.
second off why is it so bad...well hmmmmm how about millions of dead ukrainians and jews, how about the masses of poor in north korea, how about the corruption, how about the militarism.
lastly china has serious problems, and is mostly under a market in economy. communism has created and excacerbated problems like polution, class differences etc (yers in china class differences have grown and not shrunk over the last 50 yrs).

next time you post please research the facts and think about what your gonna say, because this kind of drivel is useless

Right back at ya. None of them were Communist. NONE. There is no true whole communist state thus far. Those were either totalitarians, or authoritarians with messed up leaders.

I'm not preaching Communism is awesome; I'm preaching that you shouldn't judge what things really are by what is widely accepted by society.

Yes Stalin, Mao Zong, and Castro kinda had a thing called a power trip but this is the exception not the rule.

I would be astounded if you could name me one nation that has successfully adopted communist doctrines.

People’s Republic of China: Continuing Abuses Under A New Leadership (http://web.amnesty.org/report2004/chn-summary-eng)

Yeah, I'm pretty sure I'd like to stay in Canada, where not only does the government provide me with nationalized healthcare and social support, but government agents don't visit me in the middle of the night and taser me in the crotch because I made a "subversive" comment in a chat room.

It is, ofcourse, a personal preference.

Yes, web amnesty is such a credible source. Let's try and find one that's not biased either for or against.

I would be astounded if you could name me one nation that has successfully adopted communist doctrines.

Nobody's tried. They're all like 'I'm going to be a Fascist, but I'll say I'm a commie so I can be talked on pretentious internet forums with pimply teenagers'.

I wonder what would happen if someone started a thread saying "Fascism isn't bad"?

That has given me an idea!

Yes, web amnesty is such a credible source. Let's try and find one that's not biased either for or against.

It's Amnesty International. Who else should I be referencing?

It's Amnesty International. Who else should I be referencing?

Sources from the Chinese government.

LOL, I can't help but laugh at that.

the OP is correct. Communism isn't bad, although it certainly has had a rough execution in the past. We will eventually learn and regroup. A democratic workers society will one day come into being.

I would be astounded if you could name me one nation that has successfully adopted communist doctrines.

The problem is that communism cannot be defined by nationality. It is an internationalist ideology, aiming to transcend nations and unify workers worldwide. When workers democracy had a chance of success, it was often ironically crushed by those who claimed to support it - under the guise of protecting the nation.

If China is the only pro-communism example you guys could find, I understand why there's so many pro-capitalist on the forums...
I'm not sure if there are any communist countries you can use for an example where the proverbial shit didn't hit the fan.

Now, the "Oh my God Communism kill people" argument. Do you really tell me that you capitalist-lover actually can sleep at night thinking that the law of O/D, free market et capitalism as a whole doesn't kill nobody ?!?
Grammar is your friend. Also I don't think many people suffer from the delusion that capitalism is perfect or that it hasn't caused deaths. What I think people take issue with is the scale and way the death was caused.

There's countries in Africa which suffer severe malnutrition problems in a large part of the population, but yet EXPORT food. In the British Empire of India in the XIXth century, the army just fool around and cut lot of tisserands' thumb because the local production was competiting with the metropolitan textile industry (Okay, they don't necessarely die from that but that's ugly).
The British screwed up plenty of places and no one is taking issue with that. But was that anywhere near the scale of stalin's or pol pot's purges?

Right now all around the world, there's people dying because they are not wealthy enough to have the RIGHT to healthcare. During many years, cures for illnesses like paludism was almost inexistant, because the ill was in a large majority African or other poor people, so the pharmaceutical industry didn't see the rentabiliy of developping cures. Don't tell me that capitalism didn't have killed as people as communism.
I would disagree with you on the arguement that people have a right to health care but thats a different arguement. Also can you give me some links on that accusation that the pharmaceutical industry did what you say it did. Now granted in that time period I wouldn't be suprised by that happening but I would be more inclined to believe its because of the whole racism jazz rather then the cost. So any links would be appreciated.

Basically, I don't even know if we could say that communism actually had killed people, dictatorship and authoritarian state kill people, but you could find those bloody regime in capitalist or communist version. I've never heard of a democratic form of communism (I means, real democratic, let say like France, U.K. or US, but communist). Putting blame on communism is like saying that we all should ban cars and use horses because car accident has killed more people than horse accident.
Well basically communism has that period of dictatorship thats then supposed to transfer over to the period where government ceases to exist. Sadly they seem to get hung up on that dictator period. And your apples to oranges attempt seems fairly basic. Since the dictatorship and authoritarian state was a byproduct of the communist system you can blame those deaths on it. Essentially if they didn't try for communism that shit wouldn't have gone down and people wouldn't have died.

In capitalism you don't have the chance to succeed, the society only make you think you have it. You could suceed, but it is not the fruit of your labor, entrepreneurship and free market. Trust me, I live in one of the poorer section of my city, people around me, who live on welfare for the majority, don't have a real chance to succeed. For saying a so-called chance exist, it would mean that everybody can get the same success from the same effort, but capitalist life is that some people gonna brake their back all their life in shops or meprised job without earning so much cash while children of the high society will found themselve CEO or on the board of some trust without putting the half of the energy that the proletarian a the bottom of the hierarchy put to barely earn his subsistance. Call that a chance to suceed if you want. Why people should succeed because people near them succeed before ? THAT is nepotism.[/qoute]
So if I have an idea for a buisness, get investors, set up the company, hire the workers, and hit it big its not the fruit of my labors? See here is the thing you arguement that the chance to suceed relies on everbody getting the same succes from the same effort is faulty. There are so many factors at work in the economy that two people could make the same effort and each could get different results. Having a chance to suceed does not rely on people getting the same success from the same effort rather that ability to suceed comes from people's drive, their education, their ambition, and any other number of factors. And your example of the capitalist life is so full of holes its not funny. Plenty of small buisness owners or people who are in the lower end of things suceed in life while plenty of high society kids don't suceed.

Beside, I'm not sure the Chinese govermnent really steal things to worker to give it the neighouring lazy dumbass, I think they steal things to the worker, then just shot the lazy neighbour.[/Quote]
I'm sorry but I really can't make out what your trying to say here with the grammar.

Finally, I cannot really conceptualize what kind of work make moral the earning of billions, but maybe I'm just not bright enough to figure it out.
Not everyone can make the next pet rock but who knows maybe you'll figure it out one day.

Why is the world so anti-Communism? What the big fucking deal? Communism states that the state controls everything, but no one has any wants because they're provided for by the state. This is the ideal of Communism. So why are all these capitalist pigs so afraid of something that will make them better. Capitalism perpetuates mankinds two major failings Greed and Arrogance. With Communism these traits are downsized in an effort to eliminate them. Yes Stalin, Mao Zong, and Castro kinda had a thing called a power trip but this is the exception not the rule. So all you capitolists out there take a good long look at our "wonderful" capitolistic democratic nation and then look at China which is up and coming in teh economic, military and international world. So which ship do you want to be on? Ths sink old fogey capitilistic tug boat or the state of the art sea liner Communism. Take a good look.

While communism (to some) may be a nice idea in theory, it does not take into account human greed, pejudice & other foibles.
Another problem is that most countries have a few rich, many poor. These people are supposed to be provided for, however, there will usually not be enough to go around, & there will surely be corrupt officials, who will take advatage of the system.
Those two failings you mentioned will not dissapear. They will just allow those who have the traits to be able to get ahead of others.
I'm sorry, but I don't want the government to have so much power over me. I want to earn my own money, so I can (someday) pay for my own possessions, which no-one will have the (legal) right to take away from me.
I do not want the government to allot to me everything I have.
Independence is something many people like.
Oh, & by the way, the reason that China is up & coming is mainly because communism is fighting a losing battle there. They are becoming much more capitalist. Luxury items, held in disgust during the communism era, are much sought after.
I know this because my father regularly goes to China, for medical seminars, & hosts doctors from China study with him.
Also, it has been in the news quiet a lot.

Just try read the book Animal Farm by George Orwell. It shows the corruption of communism very well.

It's Amnesty International. Who else should I be referencing?

Any neutral sources.

Capitalism doesn't kill people, it just doesn't take care of their property for free. Governments can't be capitalist and those are what kill people.

I guess I do have to start with the labor theory of value. Value in exchange(as Marx called it, although you might call it price) isn't dependent at all upon the labor put into it, it's dependent upon how desireable it is for a consumer to possess, in relation to the next best thing he could posess in exchange for the same amount of the medium of exchange(money). A consumer will typically purchase more of something if he is required to pay more money, and less of something if he is required to pay less. These same principles work for multiple consumers, and when applied to multiple consumers cover the whole of industry. Because suppliers compete as well(in a free market like the one Adam Smith and Marx analyzed) prices are driven down until they reach a point that covers the costs of production(including labor) and a surplus that is large enough to provide an incentive for the capitalist to continue in his buisness(profit). Competition(which doesn't exist in a communist or socialist economy) generally drives the costs of production down in order to increase profit by reaching the market clearing price.

Marx, as well as other classical economists like Adam Smith, thought that the ammount of labor put into the production of a good, including excess labor for rent and profit, determined the price of a good. This simply isn't true. If I were living in the desert and I went to an oasis miles away to fetch water, but found an emerald laying in the sand a few feet into my journey, I would get much more money for the emerald which took me almost no labor to obtain, than for the water, which would have taken much labor to obtain. It is clear that man is not rewarded for the hardness of his labor, but for the value that the fruit of that labor has to himself and others. Fundamentally, wealth in a free society is based upon having correct information about the value others put in labor, and then exercising or bringing about that labor.

The only exception to that is when individuals have given their wealth so obtained, or obtained through force, to others. This includes inheritance and government welfare. In that case individuals have the unearned labor of others to employ to further their wealth. Trying to solve that problem through political means might be a noble endeavor, but trying to supplant the natural system of human economy with so inneffective a system as communism, clearly is not.

Wow, that turned into a rant.

Why is the world so anti-Communism? What the big fucking deal?

because it's horribly ineffecient and is easily corruptable, and limits individualism, among other things

Communism states that the state controls everything, but no one has any wants because they're provided for by the state. This is the ideal of Communism.

of course people have wants, as they always will. scarcity is not destroyed when communism is emplaced. either way, communism has shown in the past to be the one of the worst economic systems for keeping an effecient supply and demand system.

So why are all these capitalist pigs so afraid of something that will make them better. Capitalism perpetuates mankinds two major failings Greed and Arrogance. With Communism these traits are downsized in an effort to eliminate them.

in capitalism, individual greed is forced to compete against each other, resulting in a benefit for all. communism puts all the potential for greed and corruption in a government monopoly, which is why things like this happen:

Yes Stalin, Mao Zong, and Castro kinda had a thing called a power trip but this is the exception not the rule. So all you capitolists out there take a good long look at our "wonderful" capitolistic democratic nation and then look at China which is up and coming in teh economic, military and international world.

no, those are the only examples of communist implimintation, so they are not the exception to the rule. untill someone can pull it off as marx proposed n a macro-political setting, this is the only communist record.

china is up and coming because it's economy has benefited from free market action that it has allowed recently. people starved before this happened.

So which ship do you want to be on? Ths sink old fogey capitilistic tug boat or the state of the art sea liner Communism. Take a good look.

economically, capitalism is much more potent, so i don't knwo why you describe it as a tug boat.

Well, causing the death of around if not over 100 million people doesn't help.

Plus, if you look at the communist countries nowadays there not exactly places one wishes to live in.

Please tell me where in 'Orthodox' Communism (Karl Marx's idea) it says to use brute force against people?

The USSR decided to mass murder people, Communism didn't offer the choice to do so.

China decided to mass murder people, Communism didn't offer the choice to do so.

--

Even though these countries are/were Communists, they were not true Communist States. True Communist States, as believed by many, are impossible to reach.

It is just the Mostly One-Sided American Schooling System that makes the majority of people, think Socialism and Communism is 'bad'.

And personally, I disagree, staying on NationStates long enough does not turn you into a Capitalist.

While communism (to some) may be a nice idea in theory, it does not take into account human greed, pejudice & other foibles.
Another problem is that most countries have a few rich, many poor. These people are supposed to be provided for, however, there will usually not be enough to go around, & there will surely be corrupt officials, who will take advatage of the system.
Those two failings you mentioned will not dissapear. They will just allow those who have the traits to be able to get ahead of others.
I'm sorry, but I don't want the government to have so much power over me. I want to earn my own money, so I can (someday) pay for my own possessions, which no-one will have the (legal) right to take away from me.
I do not want the government to allot to me everything I have.
Independence is something many people like.
Oh, & by the way, the reason that China is up & coming is mainly because communism is fighting a losing battle there. They are becoming much more capitalist. Luxury items, held in disgust during the communism era, are much sought after.
I know this because my father regularly goes to China, for medical seminars, & hosts doctors from China study with him.
Also, it has been in the news quiet a lot.

Just try read the book Animal Farm by George Orwell. It shows the corruption of communism very well.

China isn't communist. It's an Authoritarian state with a slight-Capitalist economic system.

your ignorance is not just rediculous, its quite sad.
first off name one communist leader who has not been an 'exception to the rule', every leader of a statist regime is a tyrant.
second off why is it so bad...well hmmmmm how about millions of dead ukrainians and jews, how about the masses of poor in north korea, how about the corruption, how about the militarism.
lastly china has serious problems, and is mostly under a market in economy. communism has created and excacerbated problems like polution, class differences etc (yers in china class differences have grown and not shrunk over the last 50 yrs).

next time you post please research the facts and think about what your gonna say, because this kind of drivel is useless

guys dont confuse communism with socialism.

in THEORY marxist communism should work. everyone provides for eachother in a commun. however the theory is flawed in that human nature is not taken into account. its human nature to want to be rewarded for your work and be better than most people. people gain power and boom there is your socialist state one guy controls all.

Communism-an economic system in which the state controls and owns all property and scarce resources are allocated by the government.

Capitalism-an economic system based upon the private ownership of resources and scare resources are allocated through the price system.

The American dream is capitalism, Bill Clinton was born on the wrong side of the tracks in Arkansan and had a step father who drank and beat him. Clinton got a scholarship, graduated from law school, made his fortune, became governor for two terms, then later President of the United States. In no other economic system could you achieve this. Greed was present long before capitalism. Mankind is greedy. Without property rights you have no rights and you have no reason to take care of property. Take a local park for instance. That is owned by everyone, but how many of you on a friday night say hey lets go take care of the park? Also with our democratic government we have the capability to remove people from office and place them there. China is becoming more powerful because they are business partners with us and they are taking on capitalistic traits. Carl Marx's biggest complaint against the price system was his example of jeweled eggs. He said that people working their entire lives to make just one part of these eggs did not get enough income to survive. The problem was that the demand for those eggs was not there. No one except for the rich could afford them and they didnt want them. Business is not evil, business is tied to the wants and needs of the consumers. If you are typing on a computer that you own then you have defeated you own argument.
Long live F.D.R.'s capitalistic legacy!

Well basically communism has that period of dictatorship thats then supposed to transfer over to the period where government ceases to exist. Sadly they seem to get hung up on that dictator period. And your apples to oranges attempt seems fairly basic. Since the dictatorship and authoritarian state was a byproduct of the communist system you can blame those deaths on it.

Hm, that's not communism per se, that's Marxism. There are other communists that believe that stage isn't necessary. And even then, he isn't referring to one ruler, because then it isn't the proletariat in charge, is it?

To quote Rosa Luxemburg:

This dictatorship consists in the manner of applying democracy, not in its elimination, but in energetic, resolute attacks upon the well-entrenched rights and economic relationships of bourgeois society, without which a socialist transformation cannot be accomplished. This dictatorship must be the work of the class and not of a little leading minority in the name of the class – that is, it must proceed step by step out of the active participation of the masses; it must be under their direct influence, subjected to the control of complete public activity; it must arise out of the growing political training of the mass of the people.



Essentially if they didn't try for communism that shit wouldn't have gone down and people wouldn't have died.

Yes, Tsarist Russia and Nationalist China were certainly hotbeds of democracy and freedom. ;)

China isn't communist. It's an Authoritarian state with a slight-Capitalist economic system.

China's economy, according to CNN, is actually more 'free' than Russia's economy.

F.D.R. had a capitalist legacy?

funny, considering he was the president who did the most to hurt it.

Capitalism doesn't kill people, it just doesn't take care of their property for free. Governments can't be capitalist and those are what kill people.

I guess I do have to start with the labor theory of value. Value in exchange(as Marx called it, although you might call it price) isn't dependent at all upon the labor put into it, it's dependent upon how desireable it is for a consumer to possess, in relation to the next best thing he could posess in exchange for the same amount of the medium of exchange(money). A consumer will typically purchase more of something if he is required to pay more money, and less of something if he is required to pay less. These same principles work for multiple consumers, and when applied to multiple consumers cover the whole of industry. Because suppliers compete as well(in a free market like the one Adam Smith and Marx analyzed) prices are driven down until they reach a point that covers the costs of production(including labor) and a surplus that is large enough to provide an incentive for the capitalist to continue in his buisness(profit). Competition(which doesn't exist in a communist or socialist economy) generally drives the costs of production down in order to increase profit by reaching the market clearing price.

Marx, as well as other classical economists like Adam Smith, thought that the ammount of labor put into the production of a good, including excess labor for rent and profit, determined the price of a good. This simply isn't true. If I were living in the desert and I went to an oasis miles away to fetch water, but found an emerald laying in the sand a few feet into my journey, I would get much more money for the emerald which took me almost no labor to obtain, than for the water, which would have taken much labor to obtain. It is clear that man is not rewarded for the hardness of his labor, but for the value that the fruit of that labor has to himself and others. Fundamentally, wealth in a free society is based upon having correct information about the value others put in labor, and then exercising or bringing about that labor.

The only exception to that is when individuals have given their wealth so obtained, or obtained through force, to others. This includes inheritance and government welfare. In that case individuals have the unearned labor of others to employ to further their wealth. Trying to solve that problem through political means might be a noble endeavor, but trying to supplant the natural system of human economy with so inneffective a system as communism, clearly is not.

Wow, that turned into a rant.


exactly its not the value of the labor its the value of the product.

hence the core belief of capitalism.

If you are typing on a computer that you own then you have defeated you own argument.


Not necessarily, if you live in a Capitalist Country, how are you to buy a Government-owned Computer, or have a Computer the Government gave you?

F.D.R. had a capitalist legacy?

funny, considering he was the president who did the most to hurt it.

WTF FDR HURT US!! HOLY SHIT!! i mean he only helped end the depression (yeah a little help wit WWII starting on that front) his new deal programs helped a crap load of people. get ure facts strait

guys dont confuse communism with socialism.

in THEORY marxist communism should work. everyone provides for eachother in a commun. however the theory is flawed in that human nature is not taken into account. its human nature to want to be rewarded for your work and be better than most people. people gain power and boom there is your socialist state one guy controls all.

No it's not: There is no universal "human nature". The current tendency for people to be self-interested is a product of society. It is the most natural way to survive in our current society, which rewards self-interest.

I would happily dedicate myself and my possessions to the community should a socialist society come into being; either your theory of a universal human nature is wrong, or I am not worthy of being classified as human.

because it's horribly ineffecient and is easily corruptable, and limits individualism, among other things

Instead of widening a gap, it closes one. It's made to stop poverty and rich-poor divides. Capitalism is much more easily corruptable.

of course people have wants, as they always will. scarcity is not destroyed when communism is emplaced. either way, communism has shown in the past to be the one of the worst economic systems for keeping an effecient supply and demand system.

Actually, its pretty efficient if there is a strong enough leader.

in capitalism, individual greed is forced to compete against each other, resulting in a benefit for all. communism puts all the potential for greed and corruption in a government monopoly, which is why things like this happen:



no, those are the only examples of communist implimintation, so they are not the exception to the rule. untill someone can pull it off as marx proposed n a macro-political setting, this is the only communist record.

china is up and coming because it's economy has benefited from free market action that it has allowed recently. people starved before this happened.

China was NEVER communist. The only reaosn why people brand it communist was it's strong ties with the soviet union, which still wasn't communist.

economically, capitalism is much more potent, so i don't knwo why you describe it as a tug boat.

Because it causes recessions and depressions. It's too unstable.

Here let me explain it like this in America you have free entry and exit. All you have to do is qualify for a green card and not have commit a crime to leave or enter. So if you don't like America, why not move to North Vietnam.;)

China was NEVER communist. The only reaosn why people brand it communist was it's strong ties with the soviet union, which still wasn't communist.

So in reality we can only look at the attempts at a communist country?

WTF FDR HURT US!! HOLY SHIT!! i mean he only helped end the depression (yeah a little help wit WWII starting on that front) his new deal programs helped a crap load of people. get ure facts strait

no, the new deal didn't do much at all, infact, it lengthened the stock market recession by limiting business growth. the same thing happened back in 1920 (similiar to the '29), but instead of freaking and getting all command economy, we let it go and it rebounded. then of course, we inflated artificial funding into it and the resulting crash ensued. so i guess we can blame that one on intervention.

that's why we didn't really start coming out of the dperession untill ww2 production boosted labor and production into our economy.

Here let me explain it like this in America you have free entry and exit. All you have to do is qualify for a green card and not have commit a crime to leave or enter. So if you don't like America, why not move to North Vietnam.;)

It's America. He can talk all he want. Free speech, remember?

So in reality we can only look at the attempts at a communist country?

Pretty much.

Pretty much.

Well then that track record still doesn't really help the communist cause much does it.

Well then that track record still doesn't really help the communist cause much does it.

Nope, not really. But you can't say 'Well communism doesn't work look at it!!'

I guess it's just too hard to assemble.

First off, I lived in Beijing for three years, and... well, remember the SARS scare back about three years ago?

The Chinese government rounded up anyone with SARS or anyone who had contact with anyone with SARS and put them in concentration camps. After that... well, let's just say nobody saw many of them again.



Now onto the meat of this thread... Yes, communism isn't bad, but it has never, EVER been implemented. It always just ends up as a corrupt dictatorship. Always. Iosef Stalin, Mao ZeDong, Pol Pot, Fidel Castro... etc. It never actually is communism.

Instead of widening a gap, it closes one. It's made to stop poverty and rich-poor divides. Capitalism is much more easily corruptable.

based off communists track record, i'd say it makes everyone poor and then limits growth potentially because it's lack of incentives and eniffecient production policies.

capitalism isn't corruptable (in true free market capitalism) because no business owner has ultimate power over a country as would a communist government, and the track record of command economies proves my point for me.

Actually, its pretty efficient if there is a strong enough leader.

strong like stalin? or mao?

the absolutely most effecient way of production is a supply and demand system in a market economy. beurocrats can't know everything in an economy or effictively predict trends, but the invisible hand of consumerism has worked for centuries, while people in communist countries are left with shortages of poorly designed goods (enless if they can trade with a market eocnomy)

China was NEVER communist. The only reaosn why people brand it communist was it's strong ties with the soviet union, which still wasn't communist.

it was a command economy, which is what i'm arguing against in this thread.

Because it causes recessions and depressions. It's too unstable.

i garauntee you can't find me a depression that wasn't caused by government interventionism or protectionism. what's unstable (or ineffecient atleast) is a board of directors trying to guess how much wool to import for the winter.

Instead of widening a gap, it closes one. It's made to stop poverty and rich-poor divides.

By reducing everyone to the lowest common denominator. It emphasizes equality imposed at gun-point rather than allowing people to rise or fall based on their own merits or strive to be the best they can be. Individuals have no rights and are subordinate to the State. Individual welfare is of no concern, as everyone is taught to work for 'the community,' and 'the common good,' rather than themselves or their families. As there is no chance of success- everyone is "equal"- there is no incentive to work hard. There is no individuality. It's like a giant ant farm.

I would be astounded if you could name me one nation that has successfully adopted communist doctrines.

Actually, there have been plenty of successful communist COMMUNITIES, but it has never really succeeded past that level.

A perfect example is kibutzim, the communal farms in the middle east. There, you work a task that you are trained and qualified for, and in turn you get a place to live and food in the community kitchen. Pretty much a good application of theoretical communism: everyone contributes their part and then they receive their basic living needs as well as a stipend for whatever luxaries they want. My brother spent some time on one. All people, regaurdless of their background, are given the chance to work and then are fed, clothed, and housed as a member of the community.

I'm sure there have been other communist communities, but when you try to apply it to the national level, you get a pretty unavoidable paradox: You can't have the type of regulation needed for communism without having a pretty all-prevelant intelligence network and enforcement system, that inevitably leads to a sort of 1984 dystopia.

(1)based off communists track record, i'd say it makes everyone poor and then limits growth potentially because it's lack of incentives and eniffecient production policies.

(2)capitalism isn't corruptable (in true free market capitalism) because no business owner has ultimate power over a country as would a communist government, and the track record of command economies proves my point for me.



(3)strong like stalin? or mao?

the absolutely most effecient way of production is a supply and demand system in a market economy. beurocrats can't know everything in an economy or effictively predict trends, but the invisible hand of consumerism has worked for centuries, while people in communist countries are left with shortages of poorly designed goods (enless if they can trade with a market eocnomy)



(4)it was a command economy, which is what i'm arguing against in this thread.



(5)i garauntee you can't find me a depression that wasn't caused by government interventionism or protectionism. what's unstable (or ineffecient atleast) is a board of directors trying to guess how much wool to import for the winter.

I'm tired doing the quotes. I'll just do by numbers.

(1) Wow, I guess I'm wrong. But then again, like I said: it never existed. Communism hasn't existed for any country thus far.

(2) Oh, you mean the large monopolies and the vast collection of corporations? Capitalism existed, and it caused the great depression. It's easily corruptable, where the wealth of the corporations outmake the wealth of the government, and it soon overtakes the control. Capitalism creates a conglomeration of corporations controlling a single entity. Like communism, no nation is truly capitalist anymore. America was the last, and it died out in the great depression (the system, not the country...obviously).

(3) They're strong leaders, but they weren't communist.

And supply and demand works better in communism than capitalism. Capitalism is where you are paid on the value of your work. So it is natural to assume that the more you work, the more you are paid, correct? Nope. Not everyone has a broad view of supply and demand, and thus they make more than needed, so when demands are up, it's already there. Therefore, the person making them is out of a job, since he already made them when they were not needed.

In communism, you only make what is needed. No more, no less. It won't be as large in profit at times as capitalist aimed economic systems, but I'll be damned if it isn't more stable.

(4) I fail to understand.

(5) The great depression. Bam, right there. Look carefully, and you'll see that corporations tried to increase their profits and overblew it. Not protectionism, no interventionism. Just a bunch of greedy companies trying to make more.

Any neutral sources.

I've provided a link to an internationally respected organization that details some of the human rights violations that occur in China. If you believe that there are no such violations occuring in China, why don't you come up with something from anything approaching a respectible institution indicating otherwise? I've provided my proof, and I believe my point has been made. Do you have any counter-evidence or not?

I've provided a link to an internationally respected organization that details some of the human rights violations that occur in China. If you believe that there are no such violations occuring in China, why don't you come up with something from anything approaching a respectible institution indicating otherwise? I've provided my proof, and I believe my point has been made. Do you have any counter-evidence or not?

I'm not saying its entirely peaceful. I'm merely quoting that its not as hyped up as most people claim it is. I've lived in China, and while it feels like the police are everywhere, as long as you've done nothing, you've got no worries.

By reducing everyone to the lowest common denominator. It emphasizes equality imposed at gun-point rather than allowing people to rise or fall based on their own merits or strive to be the best they can be. Individuals have no rights and are subordinate to the State. Individual welfare is of no concern, as everyone is taught to work for 'the community,' and 'the common good,' rather than themselves or their families. As there is no chance of success- everyone is "equal"- there is no incentive to work hard. There is no individuality. It's like a giant ant farm.

Actually, there's no preaching of gun point movement. This is what people fail to understand. Communism is only applicable when the people agree to it. Therefore, there is no need to have to be better or worse than anybody else, and every effort by a single person is spread throughout society. Hence why it doesn't work on a large scale (ie, country), but it works in smaller groups.

For example, earlier tribes in Africa and the Middle East, before they developed theocratic systems, would be branded as a communist society if you compare them. Everybody gave to the group equally, in a way that they could do, and the group benefitted from all the input.

I'm not a large advocator of mass communism - I support it because its helpful in smaller groups.

By reducing everyone to the lowest common denominator. It emphasizes equality imposed at gun-point rather than allowing people to rise or fall based on their own merits or strive to be the best they can be. Individuals have no rights and are subordinate to the State. Individual welfare is of no concern, as everyone is taught to work for 'the community,' and 'the common good,' rather than themselves or their families. As there is no chance of success- everyone is "equal"- there is no incentive to work hard. There is no individuality. It's like a giant ant farm.
*applause*
also this 'communism' hasnt been implemented stuff....well if you think communism is something else (not totalitarian or something?), then it seems unattainable to be, and if it were attainable, undesirable

Actually, there's no preaching of gun point movement. This is what people fail to understand. Communism is only applicable when the people agree to it. Therefore, there is no need to have to be better or worse than anybody else, and every effort by a single person is spread throughout society. Hence why it doesn't work on a large scale (ie, country), but it works in smaller groups.

For example, earlier tribes in Africa and the Middle East, before they developed theocratic systems, would be branded as a communist society if you compare them. Everybody gave to the group equally, in a way that they could do, and the group benefitted from all the input.

I'm not a large advocator of mass communism - I support it because its helpful in smaller groups.
thats not communism..that is communal living, dont confuse communism with its rout words. im a staunch advocate of the free market, yet i spent about 6 months living on a commune, that is ok because everyone was there of free will, communism involves coercion and the use of force, if your not describing communism as the term is commonly used, find a new term

thats not communism..that is communal living, dont confuse communism with its rout words. im a staunch advocate of the free market, yet i spent about 6 months living on a commune, that is ok because everyone was there of free will, communism involves coercion and the use of force, if your not describing communism as the term is commonly used, find a new term

Actually, it is. My teacher told me so, and he teaches law and politics. But if he's wrong, then I guess I'm supporting Communal...ism?

as long as you've done nothing, you've got no worries.

Nothing like say, organizing a pro-democracy march. Or expressing your opinion.

I'm tired doing the quotes. I'll just do by numbers.

(1) Wow, I guess I'm wrong. But then again, like I said: it never existed. Communism hasn't existed for any country thus far.

(2) Oh, you mean the large monopolies and the vast collection of corporations? Capitalism existed, and it caused the great depression. It's easily corruptable, where the wealth of the corporations outmake the wealth of the government, and it soon overtakes the control. Capitalism creates a conglomeration of corporations controlling a single entity. Like communism, no nation is truly capitalist anymore. America was the last, and it died out in the great depression (the system, not the country...obviously).

(3) They're strong leaders, but they weren't communist.

And supply and demand works better in communism than capitalism. Capitalism is where you are paid on the value of your work. So it is natural to assume that the more you work, the more you are paid, correct? Nope. Not everyone has a broad view of supply and demand, and thus they make more than needed, so when demands are up, it's already there. Therefore, the person making them is out of a job, since he already made them when they were not needed.

In communism, you only make what is needed. No more, no less. It won't be as large in profit at times as capitalist aimed economic systems, but I'll be damned if it isn't more stable.

(4) I fail to understand.

(5) The great depression. Bam, right there. Look carefully, and you'll see that corporations tried to increase their profits and overblew it. Not protectionism, no interventionism. Just a bunch of greedy companies trying to make more.


1) they were leaders of command economies, which is kind of sorta the same thing

2) yes, and communism starts out with all the wealth and production controlle din one place, so odds of corruption are greater. in true capitalism, conglomerits and monopolies have a hard time forming, and are usually attributed to soem kind of protecitonism. the US has never been true capitalism, and has always been protecitonists. we gave companies like US steel subsidies and installed higher tariffs to edge out foriegn sellers, and it became a virtual monopoly. our whole copyright system also perpetuates this in modern business like microsoft.

3) they were heads of command economies.

4) command economie = government dictates supply and labor and so on

5) the great depression was caused by calvin coolidge subsidising american industry and using stock market policy to inflate the paper value of stock to be much greater than the actual physical worth. as soon as the first sign of trouble arose, a normally minor shift was turned into a crash.

(3) They're strong leaders, but they weren't communist.

Yes, they were. They were working toward communism.

(5) The great depression. Bam, right there. Look carefully, and you'll see that corporations tried to increase their profits and overblew it. Not protectionism, no interventionism. Just a bunch of greedy companies trying to make more.

You need to read America's Great Depression by Murray Rothbard. Get cracking. Then we'll talk.

1) they were leaders of command economies, which is kind of sorta the same thing

2) yes, and communism starts out with all the wealth and production controlle din one place, so odds of corruption are greater. in true capitalism, conglomerits and monopolies have a hard time forming, and are usually attributed to soem kind of protecitonism. the US has never been true capitalism, and has always been protecitonists. we gave companies like US steel subsidies and installed higher tariffs to edge out foriegn sellers, and it became a virtual monopoly. our whole copyright system also perpetuates this in modern business like microsoft.

3) they were heads of command economies.

4) command economie = government dictates supply and labor and so on

5) the great depression was caused by calvin coolidge subsidising american industry and using stock market policy to inflate the paper value of stock to be much greater than the actual physical worth. as soon as the first sign of trouble arose, a normally minor shift was turned into a crash.
:) you make me happy, and save much typing...
youve probably even inspired me to study the stock market issue more...i know that america has never had a 'free' market economy (well maybe for like the first year independance...maybe).....

You need to read America's Great Depression by Murray Rothbard. Get cracking. Then we'll talk.
oooh i havnt read this one, ive read probably most of his stuff on monetary policy and thats about it

Yes, web amnesty is such a credible source. Let's try and find one that's not biased either for or against.

I take a bias for human rights, before a bias against human rights, every day.

Communism fails as an administocracy. It needs democracy within.

It's Amnesty International. Who else should I be referencing?
Any neutral sources.
Amnesty International doesn't care about if countries are communist, capitalist, anarchies or social democratic or whatever. They treat everyone the same. If you break human rights, they will report it. They frequently report the human rights abuses of USA also. They do not care. They're biased in favour of human rights, not biased in favour of certain countries.

That is - in my opinion - neutrality.

Why is the world so anti-Communism? What the big fucking deal? Communism states that the state controls everything, but no one has any wants because they're provided for by the state. This is the ideal of Communism. So why are all these capitalist pigs so afraid of something that will make them better. Capitalism perpetuates mankinds two major failings Greed and Arrogance. With Communism these traits are downsized in an effort to eliminate them. Yes Stalin, Mao Zong, and Castro kinda had a thing called a power trip but this is the exception not the rule. So all you capitolists out there take a good long look at our "wonderful" capitolistic democratic nation and then look at China which is up and coming in teh economic, military and international world. So which ship do you want to be on? Ths sink old fogey capitilistic tug boat or the state of the art sea liner Communism. Take a good look.

Lol, China. That's your example? A totalitarian state with a self-deceptive pseudo-mixed-economy that capitalizes on unfair trade practices and inhumane all-but-slavery labor to steal business from the industries of other countries? They manufacture and export enormous amounts of items that they didn't even think up or create, and do nothing but manufacture copies of items originally created in capitalistic states that actually reward ingenuity and ability.

And that's not even mentioning the abject poverty the vast majority of China's population lives in. Here's a thought process: Imagine the worst possible poverty-stricken overcrowded starved lifestyle here in the U.S. Multiply one hundredfold. Ta-da! You have the average Chinese low-class urban citizen.

They work for a couple of cents an hour so that the Chinese can keep attracting outsourcing business from Western nations, keep their currency value low, the U.S.'s high, and their savings big for the US to consume, so that they can continue the long-term-unstable but short-term-profitable extreme trade imbalance that's fueled their poverty-spawning upstart growth, yet is pushing us towards a global market crash.

China is the farthest thing from a model nation, and, as anyone who recognizes the term 'Tianenmen Square' knows, has followed the inevitable inherently required progression every other communist nation has - towards suppression of political freedoms and totalitarianism.

You need to read America's Great Depression by Murray Rothbard. Get cracking. Then we'll talk.


austrian eocnomists = know what they're talking about

good read indeed, i'm pretty sure it's all on mises.org

austrian eocnomists = know what they're talking about

good read indeed, i'm pretty sure it's all on mises.org
hmmmm www.mises.org, it really is a great website...i order books from them pretty regularily, lots of good stuff you cant buy in here in canadia.....
what is it again?
www.mises.org
why should you all check it out?
becuase youll learn something from the amazing austrians economists... right now im reading 'omnipotent government:the rise of the total state and total war' by lv mises...

Oooooh...personality cults for a set of over-opinionated rich people who don't feel like paying taxes?

Where do I join?

your ignorance is not just rediculous, its quite sad.
first off name one communist leader who has not been an 'exception to the rule', every leader of a statist regime is a tyrant.
second off why is it so bad...well hmmmmm how about millions of dead ukrainians and jews, how about the masses of poor in north korea, how about the corruption, how about the militarism.
lastly china has serious problems, and is mostly under a market in economy. communism has created and excacerbated problems like polution, class differences etc (yers in china class differences have grown and not shrunk over the last 50 yrs).

next time you post please research the facts and think about what your gonna say, because this kind of drivel is useless

You're absolutely right. Besides the millions of dead and dying in Communist countries, the ideal itself would only work in a utopian society where men were "angels" if you will. (That is an actual quote by an economic philosopher, whose name escapes me..) This kind of society can never be achieved because there will always be someone taking more than their fair share. Read Frederic Bastait's "The Law" if you want to see where Communism leads. I know it's actually about socialism in France, but socialism is the step before communism.
The ideal itself destroys motivation to work anyway. If the bum next door is going to get paid the same as I do when I work my butt off every week, why should I work?
Communism sucks. End of story.

You need to read America's Great Depression by Murray Rothbard. Get cracking. Then we'll talk.
The Great Crash 1929 by John Kenneth Galbraith

Why is the world so anti-Communism? What the big fucking deal? Communism states that the state controls everything, but no one has any wants because they're provided for by the state. This is the ideal of Communism. So why are all these capitalist pigs so afraid of something that will make them better. Capitalism perpetuates mankinds two major failings Greed and Arrogance. With Communism these traits are downsized in an effort to eliminate them. Yes Stalin, Mao Zong, and Castro kinda had a thing called a power trip but this is the exception not the rule. So all you capitolists out there take a good long look at our "wonderful" capitolistic democratic nation and then look at China which is up and coming in teh economic, military and international world. So which ship do you want to be on? Ths sink old fogey capitilistic tug boat or the state of the art sea liner Communism. Take a good look.

Communism is a theory of the past and the wave of the future. Mankind has been moving toward equality for several hundred years, no thanks to the marriage of Christianity and feudalism. As we move closer towards science and away from blind faith in religious ideology our freedoms increase exponentially. Technology will ultimately ensure equality of opportunity and level the playing field for all humanity.

If you stay on NS long, you will be a capitalist.

I am not going to say why, but I am relatively sure of it.

Actually while on NS I went from Centerist to
Libertiarian Democratic Socialist. Well what about that.

Actually while on NS I went from Centerist to
Libertiarian Democratic Socialist. Well what about that.
Same sort of thing, isn't it? :D

I reckon people just get reduced to the things they already really believed in, and they learn new fancy names for them.

Actually while on NS I went from Centerist to
Libertiarian Democratic Socialist. Well what about that.
how can yuou be a liberatarian democratic socialist....thats contradictory in nature

Why is the world so anti-Communism? What the big fucking deal? Communism states that the state controls everything, but no one has any wants because they're provided for by the state. This is the ideal of Communism. So why are all these capitalist pigs so afraid of something that will make them better. Capitalism perpetuates mankinds two major failings Greed and Arrogance. With Communism these traits are downsized in an effort to eliminate them. Yes Stalin, Mao Zong, and Castro kinda had a thing called a power trip but this is the exception not the rule. So all you capitolists out there take a good long look at our "wonderful" capitolistic democratic nation and then look at China which is up and coming in teh economic, military and international world. So which ship do you want to be on? Ths sink old fogey capitilistic tug boat or the state of the art sea liner Communism. Take a good look.
This is so funny. Ok, why am I anti-Communism:

1) Communism is funadmentally anti-liberal. You cant own property, you cant improve yourself, you cannot trade, you cannot defy the system.

2) Communism realistically needs to be enforced to get people to accept that this repression, which means either brainwashing or coersion. Do I want either of these to happen to me? No thanks.

3) Communism provides no incentive to work at all, not least work hard. This means that you will actually have almost less goods of a worse quality than you want, as happened in Communist Russia, China (China is not Communist anymore, it is a mixed economy oppressive oglicracy of the most disgusting kind - I would embargo the damn thing right away if I were Prime Minister), Etc.

4) Communism does not allow the freedom to change systems. If you live in a Capitalist Democracy then you can vote in a Government that introduces Communism. Communism does not allow a 'return mechanism'.

5) I have seen no comprehensive, intelligent argument for Communism. Arguments that use stupid, unsubstantiated and frankly wrong analogies like "So which ship do you want to be on? Ths sink old fogey capitilistic tug boat or the state of the art sea liner Communism. Take a good look." are sadly all too common.

This is so funny. Ok, why am I anti-Communism:

1) Communism is funadmentally anti-liberal. You cant own property, you cant improve yourself, you cannot trade, you cannot defy the system.

2) Communism realistically needs to be enforced to get people to accept that this repression, which means either brainwashing or coersion. Do I want either of these to happen to me? No thanks.

3) Communism provides no incentive to work at all, not least work hard. This means that you will actually have almost less goods of a worse quality than you want, as happened in Communist Russia, China (China is not Communist anymore, it is a mixed economy oppressive oglicracy of the most disgusting kind - I would embargo the damn thing right away if I were Prime Minister), Etc.

4) Communism does not allow the freedom to change systems. If you live in a Capitalist Democracy then you can vote in a Government that introduces Communism. Communism does not allow a 'return mechanism'.

5) I have seen no comprehensive, intelligent argument for Communism. Arguments that use stupid, unsubstantiated and frankly wrong analogies like "So which ship do you want to be on? Ths sink old fogey capitilistic tug boat or the state of the art sea liner Communism. Take a good look." are sadly all too common.
i think the problem was something about a high school teacher telling this guy that russia cuba nk etc arent communist, and that communists just want to love and live together in peace.... or something like that

how can yuou be a liberatarian democratic socialist....thats contradictory in nature

No, libertarianism is a governmental system, socialism is an economic one.

i think the problem was something about a high school teacher telling this guy that russia cuba nk etc arent communist, and that communists just want to love and live together in peace.... or something like that
Yeah then your High School teacher doesnt know what he's talking about. Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Etc. all honestly believed in Communism. It's easy to say that they didnt, and that they just mangled it to take over the country, but it simply isnt true. It may be true of some of the later leaders (such as the current Chinese Government, or the later Premiers of the USSR) but Lenin honestly believed he was fulfilling Marx's goals when he introduced War Communism and cause starvation. He honestly thought he was going the right thing when he shot those who refused to hand over their grain to the government for no food. Everything they did either fit with the Communist philosophy, or it was introduced only because it was desperately needed (ie. the New Economic Policy replacing War Communism because War Communism was leading to everyone starving or being shot by the Red Guard).

Stalin apologists will tell you that this only happened because Russia was largely made up of peasants and not proletarians, but even parts of the staunchly pro-Communist Soviet military revolted. The fact is that Communism does not work economically and when that happens, even the people who want and will put up with the repressed social rights and such start to think that it might not be such a good idea afterall. Of course, because Communism requires everyone to work as a collective society for it to function, this cannot be tolerated and Lenin had to kill them with the Red Guard to ensure the future of the revolution.

So do Communists want peace and love? No, that's pacifists / druggies. Communists want the world to live under their system. They believe it will make the world a better place, yes, and Im sure their goals are noble, but in reality not only does the system not work as intended, but it isnt exactly a very desireable system in any case.

No, libertarianism is a governmental system, socialism is an economic one.
so...youll tax people alot, have lots of welfare....wait whats liberatarian about this...their right to use subsidies drugs?.....thats socialism with civil rights maybe....but its simply unjust to call anything socialist in nature 'classical liberal'

This is so funny. Ok, why am I anti-Communism:

1) Communism is funadmentally anti-liberal. You cant own property, you cant improve yourself, you cannot trade, you cannot defy the system.

We communists view capitalism as containing inherent injustices too - we are born expected to accept that there are people who are born superior to us, and we are supposed to accept our position in life, and the fact that some people are just born "unlucky". I dispute the "you can't improve yourself" part. Of course you can. However, for you to receive any benefit from this, it needs to be a team effort. To improve your lot, you must work with others to achieve this goal. Also, in a capitalist society, you cannot defy the system either - to not participate in the market and survive, you need to steal.

2) Communism realistically needs to be enforced to get people to accept that this repression, which means either brainwashing or coersion. Do I want either of these to happen to me? No thanks.

It's a problem, yes. I think (hope) that one day human thinking develops to become less selfish than it is now...Capitalism has proved remarkably capable at warping the mind of society towards certain things....with luck, one day there may be a turnaround. Of course, it remains to be seen.

3) Communism provides no incentive to work at all, not least work hard. This means that you will actually have almost less goods of a worse quality than you want, as happened in Communist Russia, China (China is not Communist anymore, it is a mixed economy oppressive oglicracy of the most disgusting kind - I would embargo the damn thing right away if I were Prime Minister), Etc.

Well, neither does modern Capitalism, in practice. No matter how hard you work in a capitalist society, you are in no way guaranteed advancement. If your employer doesn't like you, he won't promote you. And I don't blame the workers of Soviet Russia for not working to the best of their capability. I would also refuse to place loyalty to such a vile and oppressive government.

EDIT- And, I might add, in that system, it was the safest way to damage it and not be arrested. I applaud their ingenuity, whether intentional or not.

4) Communism does not allow the freedom to change systems. If you live in a Capitalist Democracy then you can vote in a Government that introduces Communism. Communism does not allow a 'return mechanism'.

I completely disagree. Should a communist government ever be elected, big business would automatically take control of government by whichever means it could. There is no way that those with wealth would peacably give it up even if the vast majority of society was against them.

5) I have seen no comprehensive, intelligent argument for Communism. Arguments that use stupid, unsubstantiated and frankly wrong analogies like "So which ship do you want to be on? Ths sink old fogey capitilistic tug boat or the state of the art sea liner Communism. Take a good look." are sadly all too common.

That's because your mind is made up, and nothing anyone can say will change it anyway.

so...youll tax people alot, have lots of welfare....wait whats liberatarian about this...their right to use subsidies drugs?.....thats socialism with civil rights maybe....but its simply unjust to call anything socialist in nature 'classical liberal'

Socialism has nothing to do with tax.

I advocate a society with an economy democratically run by workers, where all receive an equal share of economic growth. I also believe in very few social controls - you can do whatever you like as long as it doesn't harm anyone else.

"libertarianism" and socialism are compatible. I didn't call socialism "classical liberal". The problem is that your perception of "libertarian" is primarily an economic one. It can apply to a governmental system too.

We communists view capitalism as containing inherent injustices too - we are born expected to accept that there are people who are born superior to us, and we are supposed to accept our position in life, and the fact that some people are just born "unlucky".
This is just wrong. The whole point of capitalism is to say that if you work hard then you can improve your postion in life, but you actually have to do something. Communism says that you are automatically in a perfect paradise existance where you have everything you could want for free. Of course, this doesnt happen, and you end up being as poor as the poor are under Capitalism, only everyone else is poor as well and you cant do anything to get out of it.

I dispute the "you can't improve yourself" part. Of course you can. However, for you to receive any benefit from this, it needs to be a team effort. To improve your lot, you must work with others to achieve this goal.
No, you cannot. By definition, everyone in Communism is equal. To improve yourself you would stop being equal. Only society can improve itself, which removes any personal choice or ability to make an individual effort.

Also, in a capitalist society, you cannot defy the system either - to not participate in the market and survive, you need to steal.
Stealing is against the law to protect peoples' possessions, so no you dont need to steal. You need to work hard, build up capital and invest it. You can also defy the system, which is why workers' co-operatives and Communist parties exist in capitalist societies.

It's a problem, yes. I think (hope) that one day human thinking develops to become less selfish than it is now...
This will never happen. People wont all independently decide that you are right, especially when you clearly arent.

Capitalism has proved remarkably capable at warping the mind of society towards certain things....with luck, one day there may be a turnaround. Of course, it remains to be seen.
Capitalism does not "warp" anyone's minds. If it did, why would there be so many communists like you arguing with me about it? If it enforced values, why would Communsit and Socialist Parties be allowed?

Well, neither does modern Capitalism, in practice. No matter how hard you work in a capitalist society, you are in no way guaranteed advancement.
No, you arent "guaranteed" advancement, but nor should you be. You should be "guaranteed" a good life - you should have to work for it.

If your employer doesn't like you, he won't promote you.
Errr... I think this is illegal in most countries. Of course, in reality, your employer can choose not to promote you because he doesnt like you, but his company is hardly going to do well if it hires and promotes based on individual likes and dislikes rather than skill and hardwork it is hardly going to do well, is it? In addition, promotion within a company is not the only possible avenue of advancement.

And I don't blame the workers of Soviet Russia for not working to the best of their capability. I would also refuse to place loyalty to such a vile and oppressive government.
A Communist Government, which honestly believed in the principles of Communism. You cant have a free Communist government - if people are allowed to own property and trade their produce, it isnt Communist.

I completely disagree. Should a communist government ever be elected, big business would automatically take control of government by whichever means it could. There is no way that those with wealth would peacably give it up even if the vast majority of society was against them.
This is a baseless assertion / propaganda with no historical precedent. The mid-20th century Labour Governments in Britain privatised and then destroyed vast swathes of British industry, yet I dont recall any coup d'etat or business take-over. The same happened in a lot of Europe, Soviet Russia, Cuba, Maoist China, Etc.

That's because your mind is made up, and nothing anyone can say will change it anyway.
No, it's because every argument I have heard I can counter, and no model of Communism that I have been presented would either be desireable to me or particularly realistic. I dont actually want "equality" because I like to think that I can improve my life. No one has been able to convince me otherwise. I have nothing to gain by defending capitalism, so why would I continue to do so if I had heard convincing arguments? The fact is, I havent.

You honestly don't know why the world's so anti-communist?

Have you lived under a rock for the past . . . 25 years or something?

I do not follow the classical model for communism. In my ideal communism, everyone as an equal chance to succed or fail, however if you do fail there is a safty net to break your fall so you can try again. People would certainly not be equal in materal possessions, but our lives would not be driven by them. We would be more focused on family, friends, improving ourselves,work ans society.

In a way this seems a bit like capitalism, however the economic system is freemarket socialist or communist. Where people vote with there purchases and at there workplace. This society would still have a government, but it would be largely decentralized. Poverty would be gone as would the super-rich.

That's because your mind is made up, and nothing anyone can say will change it anyway.

A trait we happily share with the communists.

Communism isnt bad. Anyone who makes any judgement on communism and doesnt know the facts doesnt deserve an opinion and needs there head examined. The old Russia Was State-Capitalist. Not communist, so basing any arguement on it is ridiculous and is like basing an arguement for why jesus existed on the islamic holy book.
The fact remains that pure communism has never been achieved so your "Wwelll it works on paper" arguements are also ludricrous. Also, you cannot make judgement and summarize it by saying "Communism is bad." ... because you are effected by propoganda. ESPECIALLY if your american.
What are we to learn from this? Dont gip communism unless you know about it, or i'll eat your face.

This is just wrong. The whole point of capitalism is to say that if you work hard then you can improve your postion in life, but you actually have to do something.

Not really- I don't claim that capitalism has zero class fluidity (as in feudalism), but even so, unless you are a *very* privileged minority, you are naturally supposed to accept that there are people better than you because they have more money. You can work to the best of your ability to extricate yourself from that situation, but it's like a lottery - you have no guarantee of doing so, and this is supposed to be accepted and taken at face value.

Communism says that you are automatically in a perfect paradise existance where you have everything you could want for free. Of course, this doesnt happen, and you end up being as poor as the poor are under Capitalism, only everyone else is poor as well and you cant do anything to get out of it.[/quote]

I don't know if that holds any water either. The nations of the 20th century that purported to be operated on Marxist lines were poor to begin with. Most of the Capitalist nations that started out poor (disregarding the Asian "tiger" economies for the moment - though these apparently required dictatorial political systems to guide this development) have remained in relative poverty as well, and it is likely that they will never catch up.

No, you cannot. By definition, everyone in Communism is equal. To improve yourself you would stop being equal. Only society can improve itself, which removes any personal choice or ability to make an individual effort.

And so applying yourself to improving your efficiency at work, or coming up with an innovation that does the same is in contradiction of communist ideology? I'm sorry, but I don't understand that contention.

Stealing is against the law to protect peoples' possessions, so no you dont need to steal. You need to work hard, build up capital and invest it. You can also defy the system, which is why workers' co-operatives and Communist parties exist in capitalist societies.

But you will nevertheless be part of the market system, unless you run off into the woods and become a hunter gatherer (an option I overlooked in my previous post). Co-operatives are a good idea, yet they can't operate truly independently.

You can theoretically defy the system in a dictatorship too, it simply isn't advisable to do so. On a side note: do you think you'd be likely to be promoted within your job if your employer discovered that you were a member of the Communist party?

This will never happen. People wont all independently decide that you are right, especially when you clearly arent.

And people won't all independently decide that *you* are right, especially when from my viewpoint, you clearly aren't.

Capitalism does not "warp" anyone's minds. If it did, why would there be so many communists like you arguing with me about it? If it enforced values, why would Communsit and Socialist Parties be allowed?

That's not quite what I mean. I don't view human nature as a constant. I think it changes over time. Once upon a time, we lived in communal societies. Human thinking changed over time - to live a better quality of life, you needed money. The best way to live comfortably was by exploiting others; thus the birth of slavery, and so on. Over time, slavery became a bad thing. I see no reason why human thinking as a whole won't one day change back to a more communal nature.

I never mentioned "enforced" values. I think, however, that modern Capitalism has a set of values attached to it, and if you follow these, you will be more "successful" (though not necessarily happier) if you follow them. Thus there is pressure, enforced or no, to subscribe to these beliefs. Life certainly would be a lot easier if I didn't care about politics and thought only about myself.

No, you arent "guaranteed" advancement, but nor should you be. You should be "guaranteed" a good life - you should have to work for it.

Ah, but that doesn't cover those born with wealth, hm? I think everyone should work for a good life, but I also think that everyone should receive one if they do this - capitalism won't grant that.

Errr... I think this is illegal in most countries. Of course, in reality, your employer can choose not to promote you because he doesnt like you, but his company is hardly going to do well if it hires and promotes based on individual likes and dislikes rather than skill and hardwork it is hardly going to do well, is it?

It would be illegal only if he told you that he wasn't promoting you because he doesn't like you. If he doesn't say anything, it doesn't matter.

Logic would dictate that you are correct, as well, but it happens, nonetheless. All the time. I don't believe Capitalism has ever purported to be a system based upon logic.

In addition, promotion within a company is not the only possible avenue of advancement.

How so? I can see how in certain jobs, it might be possible to leapfrog to a higher position in another company, but this isn't an option all the time (Joe Clerk isn't particularly likely to jump to Joe Head Accountant in another company). Unless you meant something else entirely?

A Communist Government, which honestly believed in the principles of Communism. You cant have a free Communist government - if people are allowed to own property and trade their produce, it isnt Communist.

Its leaders may have claimed to believe in the principles of communism, but they themselves never claimed the USSR to be communist in practice.

It's obvious that our definitions of "free" differ, so I won't get into that argument.

This is a baseless assertion / propaganda with no historical precedent. The mid-20th century Labour Governments in Britain privatised and then destroyed vast swathes of British industry, yet I dont recall any coup d'etat or business take-over.

Privatised? Did you mean nationalised? Even so - it would hardly seem to be a concerted attack upon the entire bourgeoisie...it appears they have survived quite well anyway.

The same happened in a lot of Europe, Soviet Russia, Cuba, Maoist China, Etc.

Did you forget the Russian and Chinese civil wars?

No, it's because every argument I have heard I can counter, and no model of Communism that I have been presented would either be desireable to me or particularly realistic. I dont actually want "equality" because I like to think that I can improve my life. No one has been able to convince me otherwise. I have nothing to gain by defending capitalism, so why would I continue to do so if I had heard convincing arguments? The fact is, I havent.

But I doubt anyone could actually change your mind and convince you that a collective society would be better than one driven by self-interest, no matter how strong their arguments. That's fine, you are of course entitled to your opinion.

A trait we happily share with the communists.

Hold on, I never said that everyone was set in their ways. Some people do change.

Communism ain't bad? :sniper: Must be their leaders then, eh? :eek:

Communism ain't bad? :sniper: Must be their leaders then, eh? :eek:

I'm going to seriously "redistribute" someone's head to their anus if I see another gun smiley. :mad:

Communism is a good idea, but only really works IN THEORY. It ignores the most basic human craving, and that is to own things - money, land, property, you name it. Pure communism is a utopia, but unfortuantely there is no single example of communism anywhere that can be described as perfect. Capitalism - while not the best society for all - has proven more successful because it meets the demand for ownership that the majority of people have.

Communism, to work, would have to take place in a fully industrialised country, which contains a large amount of people who fully support the idea and who do not mind government ownership of pretty much everything. Also, the government would have to be completely non-corrupt, with no desire for extra power and money and a willingness to step down once it wasn't needed.

So far, there's nowhere that meets all those criteria.

However, anti-communism doesn't exactly help it. Capitalism has produced a divided world, with the vast majority living in horrendous poverty. However, it's so well established that it's unlikely that a communist revolution will take place at any time in the near future.
Root for Socialism instead!

Actually, in response to the OPs reference to "greed" as a failing that capitalism perpetuates, I would say that that's not entirely true. Mutual self interest, referred to as greed by detractors of the free market system is actual the motor of capitalism. Capitalism harnesses "greed" to maximize efficiency and generate goods, wealth and the rest. Just as fire is harnessed to boil water and cook food, "greed" is harnessed to drive our economic system.

Communism is a good idea, but only really works IN THEORY. It ignores the most basic human craving, and that is to own things - money, land, property, you name it.

Explain then, why human society existed before the concept of property, and before money was even invented? How can it therefore be the most basic human craving?

However, anti-communism doesn't exactly help it. Capitalism has produced a divided world, with the vast majority living in horrendous poverty. However, it's so well established that it's unlikely that a communist revolution will take place at any time in the near future.
Root for Socialism instead!
Actually, capitalism hasn't produced a divided world, innovation, industrialization, cultural evoltion and the game of chance of natural resource accessability has done that.

1. Communism isn't bad it's evil, count the bodies in the USSR and China
2. It doesn't work ... ever. Feel free to cite and example of a communist state that has worked, then feel free to move there.

Actually, capitalism hasn't produced a divided world, innovation, industrialization, cultural evoltion and the game of chance of natural resource accessability has done that.

How then do you cater for imperialism? The major western nations used the resources of the world to build up their own economic infrastructure. The effects of it are still rampant today.

I think what he is trying to say is, COMMUNISM is good.

All you people referring to China or North Viet. then you obviously don't understand the concept of communism.

Communism is a ; STATELESS, CLASSLEE, society. So therefore China or North Viet. or Cuba are not communist countries. Because 'Communist Countries' are oxymoronic.

The theory of communism is good, no doubt about it, it's the way revolutionaries or other forces go about getting 'communism'. Revolution/change MUST come soon for environmental, social and political reasons. We learn from mistakes in the past, so next time there is a revolution...people will learn the mistakes of the past revolution and so on.


All you people that complain about how communism has killed so many people (which it hasn't) what about capitalism 10,000 people a day die of illnesses just because of capitalism!!

[QUOTE]1. Communism isn't bad it's evil, count the bodies in the USSR and ChinaQUOTE]

This shows how much you have licked up the propaganda. Millions died in the USSR because of famine but propaganda, says they are 'murders'.

China has done many corrupt things but China IS NOT communist (and niether is Russia or any 'COMMUNIST STATE' because it's OXYMORONIC!!), so therefore your point is void. Anyone can call themselves 'communist' to win the proletriats support you know.

How then do you cater for imperialism? The major western nations used the resources of the world to build up their own economic infrastructure. The effects of it are still rampant today.
Imperialism is mercantilistic. A system of national interest supplanting economic interest. With a capitalist system foreign involvement would involve increasing free trade agreements and economic cooperation, not military domination.

Communism always sounds good, but to me the largest problem is the vanguard. When a party is formed to ensure a state remains communist it goes the path of the dictator. The choice of eqaulity is normally made to improve living conditions. Nations like USSR, Cuba, and China before the 1980's had eqaulity for the people, but everyone was eqaully poor.

Marx said communism would occur naturally, Lenin said it had to be forced using the vanguard party. Some argue that true communism would take the shape of a trade union system. Small groups in charge of various jobs. They elect a leader to speak for them in a group assembly, and at anytime the leader can be recalled and changed.

The theory that people will rise up and overthrow the shackles of the owners has been taken literally. I believe Marx meant that one day people would band together and demand things to improve their lives. Owning means of production doesn't mean physically owning it, it mean controlling how things work.

How then do you cater for imperialism? The major western nations used the resources of the world to build up their own economic infrastructure. The effects of it are still rampant today.
Imperialism has nothing to do with capitalism. Capitalism is an economic doctrine. Imperialism is a political one. Throught the time, imperialism was practiced by all kinds of states, not necessarily capitalist states. You may say that the capitalist states were more succesfull at imperialism because of the economic model they followed, but that's all.

Communism doesn't work because of mankind. It's as simple as that.

so...youll tax people alot, have lots of welfare....wait whats liberatarian about this

i have never figured out why mere opposition to the welfare state was enough to make people think themselves 'libertarian'. especially since so many so-called 'libertarians' trip all over themselves to support statist wars, want to restrict or abolish certain types of free association (such as labor unions), and even defend president bush when he declares that his military position allows him to break the law whenever he feels like it.

if i were one of the consistent 'libertarians' i would do everything in my power to abolish the percieved connection between hating the welfare state and being able to call yourself a 'libertarian'. otherwise you wind up letting too many out-and-out authoritarian state worshippers into the club.

but its simply unjust to call anything socialist in nature 'classical liberal'

even psuedo-libertarianism is not identical with classical liberalism, and libertarianism in general certainly isn't.

Imperialism is mercantilistic. A system of national interest supplanting economic interest. With a capitalist system foreign involvement would involve increasing free trade agreements and economic cooperation, not military domination.

Ideologically, perhaps. However, the development of modern capitalism would not have been possible without such intervention. For example, The many fiefdoms of India would not have been able to export the vast amount of resources that were essential to maintaining the pace of British economic development otherwise. Most areas taken in Imperial expansion were not geared for foreign trade, many of them barely interacting with the outside world. Imperial expansion brought them together and interconnected their economies. This would not have been possible otherwise.

Imperialism has nothing to do with capitalism. Capitalism is an economic doctrine. Imperialism is a political one. Throught the time, imperialism was practiced by all kinds of states, not necessarily capitalist states. You may say that the capitalist states were more succesfull at imperialism because of the economic model they followed, but that's all.

Capitalism is based on CAPITAL. So therefore CAPITALism and Imperialism are linked together very much. Capitalism and COLIONALISATION , were very much linked and you cannot refute this, 1st world countries are very rich because of colionialisation.

The first thing America did in Afghanistan was plan to build oil pipelines, so they can get more oil...how coincidental.

No, libertarianism is a governmental system, socialism is an economic one.

The two are completely incompatible. Libertarians favor the smallest government possible (or none at all), making them minarchists or even anarchists. Socialism is big government, which is everything they stand against.

Imperial expansion brought them together and interconnected their economies. This would not have been possible otherwise.

So the ends justify the means?

Communism doesn't work because of mankind. It's as simple as that.

As i've explained hundreds of times, mankind is not naturally capitalistic. If it were, there would be noone that identifies themselves as "communist", unless you also choose to call them subhuman. There is no constant "human nature".

I'm going to seriously "redistribute" someone's head to their anus if I see another gun smiley. :mad:

You don't think you'll see any guns in a Commie society? Get used to it buddy, if you really think it's a neat form of gov't.:fluffle:, my butt!

With a capitalist system foreign involvement would involve increasing free trade agreements and economic cooperation, not military domination.

that's a nice bit of dogma. too bad it doesn't map so well onto the reality of capitalism and what capitalists actually demand in terms of foreign policy and foreign relations.

So the ends justify the means?

Read back. I'm not arguing for imperialism, i'm arguing against it. I'm saying that imperialism, and by extension capitalism, has resulted in a divided world.

Do you want to know why all these nations failed to become a communist society. It's because everything goes in a tier Feudalism Capitolism Socialism Communism. Because of this you get your dictators at the level of socialism. Know one has been able to get around this power trip to the next level. To get to this perfect happiness people have to be ruled with many many laws and be conditioned into following these laws without a police presense. To get to this perfectness of communism you would have to go through a basic military state aka (Hitlers Germany).
15

Do you want to know why all these nations failed to become a communist society. It's because everything goes in a tier Feudalism Capitolism Socialism Communism (karl marx i believe). Because of this you get your dictators at the level of socialism. Know one has been able to get around this power trip to the next level. To get to this perfect happiness people have to be ruled with many many laws and be conditioned into following these laws without a police presense. To get to this perfectness of communism you would have to go through a basic military state aka (Hitlers Germany). This is what I have determined.
15

Libertarians favor the smallest government possible (or none at all)

one would think that libertarians would favor, i don't know, liberty maybe? and that being fanatical lovers of liberty, they would want liberty to be meaningfully spread throughout all aspects of life. and therefore some of them might reasonably conclude that there is far more exercise of arbitrary authority and control in capitalist enterprises than could ever be acceptable to the liberty-minded. which would lead them to search for more liberty-oriented social and economic models, eventually winding up at something that clearly falls within at least the big tent definition of 'socialism'

You don't think you'll see any guns in a Commie society? Get used to it buddy, if you really think it's a neat form of gov't.:fluffle:

I just think that smiley is retarded...I am getting sick of seeing "LOLZOR COMMUNISM SUX!!!!!! :sniper: :mp5: :gundge:"

Do you want to know why all these nations failed to become a communist society. It's because everything goes in a tier Feudalism Capitolism Socialism Communism (karl marx i believe). Because of this you get your dictators at the level of socialism. Know one has been able to get around this power trip to the next level. To get to this perfect happiness people have to be ruled with many many laws and be conditioned into following these laws without a police presense. To get to this perfectness of communism you would have to go through a basic military state aka (Hitlers Germany). This is what I have determined.
15

So Marx believed, but Marx wasn't God.

No, I daresay it is positively laudable, working upon the assumption the entire nation is populated by moronic individuals whose vocations and ambitionsdo not surpass that of janitor.

No, I daresay it is positively laudable, working upon the assumption the entire nation is populated by moronic individuals whose vocations and ambitionsdo not surpass that of janitor.

That is a wonderfully well informed and well researched argument you have there. "For communism to work, everyone must be a moron".

Uh-huh.

Capitalism is based on CAPITAL. So therefore CAPITALism and Imperialism are linked together very much. Capitalism and COLIONALISATION , were very much linked and you cannot refute this, 1st world countries are very rich because of colionialisation.

The first thing America did in Afghanistan was plan to build oil pipelines, so they can get more oil...how coincidental.
Yes, but the USSR was also imperialistic in supporting so many 3rd world regimes, and yet Russia was certainly not capitalist. The Mongol Empire was imperialist, and yet the Mongols were not capitalists. Western Europe colonized Asia and Africa and not the other way around because Western Europe was more efficient. Why were they more efficient? Because they were capitalist states.

one would think that libertarians would favor, i don't know, liberty maybe? and that being fanatical lovers of liberty, they would want liberty to be meaningfully spread throughout all aspects of life. and therefore some of them might reasonably conclude that there is far more exercise of arbitrary authority and control in capitalist enterprises than could ever be acceptable to the liberty-minded. which would lead them to search for more liberty-oriented social and economic models, eventually winding up at something that clearly falls within at least the big tent definition of 'socialism'

I don't see how socialism is compatible with liberty. If I don't have the freedom to choose my own healthcare, choose my own education, own my own property, or spend my money however I choose, I'm not free.

I don't see how socialism is compatible with liberty. If I don't have the freedom to choose my own healthcare, choose my own education, own my own property, or spend my money however I choose, I'm not free.

i strongly suspect the main problem is one of definitions. what is yours?

I don't see how socialism is compatible with liberty. If I don't have the freedom to choose my own healthcare, choose my own education, own my own property, or spend my money however I choose, I'm not free.

So poor people under capitalism aren't free?

So poor people under capitalism aren't free?
Let me tell you something. The unemployment aid in the Western countries is higher than the salary of an engineer or intelectual in a 3rd world country. So you guys don't know what poverty really is. Period.

I don't see how socialism is compatible with liberty. If I don't have the freedom to choose my own healthcare, choose my own education, own my own property, or spend my money however I choose, I'm not free.

I understand what you are saying. But I must disagree. National Healthcare is not just a drain on your bank account it acts as a safety net if, god forbid, something bad occurs. Choosing your education? That is what private schools are for, but for the Americans who are at minimum wage how can they afford such things?

Own your own property? Who does that? The bank owns it till you pay it off, so you own a piece of paper saying you can own your house once you pay the loan back with interest.

If you spend money how ever you want fine! But what happens when you break your leg and have to leave work only you can't pay your medical bills cause you forgot to make that payment to your health insurance. Where is the security net to protect you?

While communism (to some) may be a nice idea in theory, it does not take into account human greed, pejudice & other foibles.

Thank you. This was precisely the argument I was going to make, but you got there first. I call this the human factor. Communism on paper isn't neccesarily a horrible idea, but when you add the human factor into the equation, what seemed like a good idea at the time, suddenly turns into a not so good idea.

Human beings are inherently complicated, so that no matter how astonishing an idea make look you can never factor in exactly how humans will react to it. Communism is one example of this. It seems like an admirable idea at first. Everyone will be equal and share equally in the wealth. Unfortunately some humans think that they are more equal than others and use the system to take advantage of that.

No one can be truly equal in the world so long as there is human selfishness and jealousy in the world.:(

I understand what you are saying. But I must disagree. National Healthcare is not just a drain on your bank account it acts as a safety net if, god forbid, something bad occurs. Choosing your education? That is what private schools are for, but for the Americans who are at minimum wage how can they afford such things?
I don't see anything wrong with a certain level of healthcare and with public education. But that's not communism, nor socialism (at least not by my definition).

While communism (to some) may be a nice idea in theory, it does not take into account human greed, pejudice & other foibles.

Thank you. This was precisely the argument I was going to make, but you got there first. I call this the human factor. Communism on paper isn't neccesarily a horrible idea, but when you add the human factor into the equation, what seemed like a good idea at the time, suddenly turns into a not so good idea.

Human beings are inherently complicated, so that no matter how astonishing an idea make look you can never factor in exactly how humans will react to it. Communism is one example of this. It seems like an admirable idea at first. Everyone will be equal and share equally in the wealth. Unfortunately some humans think that they are more equal than others and use the system to take advantage of that.

No one can be truly equal in the world so long as there is human selfishness and jealousy in the world.:(

Let me tell you something. The unemployment aid in the Western countries is higher than the salary of an engineer or intelectual in a 3rd world country. So you guys don't know what poverty really is. Period.

What made you assume I was restricting my definition of 'poor' to the priveleged West? Capitalism is after all, whether we like it or not, a global phenomenon.

I put this to you....

Capitalism advocates a free market and meritocracy wherein no discrimination is made between class and race, whereas Communism advocates the violent suppression of the Bourgeoise, armed insurrection and the restriction of income and possession from all those whose position surpasses the average.

And yet we continue to discuss the idiosyncratic superiority fo either concept.

What made you assume I was restricting my definition of 'poor' to the priveleged West? Capitalism is after all, whether we like it or not, a global phenomenon.
Capitalism is not the solution to all the world problems. The third world countries suffer from problems independent of capitalism. Many of them were ruled by communis dictatorships, for example (Eastern Europe, Africa, South-East Asia). Other praciced (some still do) discrimination of many of their citizens, thus keeping the majority of the population in ignorance and poverty (most of Latin America). Still others are just now developing from a lower economic level (India, China, many Arabian states).

I'd say a good state (not perfect, since perfection cannot be achieved) should be a capitalist democracy with a certain level of social security for difusing any social tensions which might appear.

Communism is great, and I'd support communism over our capitalism any day. Castro, Stalin, they all had great governments, but unforuntunately, yes, they wanted more, as they always do. Unfortunately, I believe that is the downside of Communism. The leader will always want more. Even more unfortunate is that that will probably always be the way with Communism. Except in Vietnam, where communism seems to work fine, but America needed to get rid of it for stupid reasons. Oh well, I say, to hell with you all!

Thank you. This was precisely the argument I was going to make, but you got there first. I call this the human factor. Communism on paper isn't neccesarily a horrible idea, but when you add the human factor into the equation, what seemed like a good idea at the time, suddenly turns into a not so good idea.

Human beings are inherently complicated, so that no matter how astonishing an idea make look you can never factor in exactly how humans will react to it. Communism is one example of this. It seems like an admirable idea at first. Everyone will be equal and share equally in the wealth. Unfortunately some humans think that they are more equal than others and use the system to take advantage of that.

No one can be truly equal in the world so long as there is human selfishness and jealousy in the world.:(

Dont think there is such a thing as more equal... makes you sound stupid... HA

Communism is great, and I'd support communism over our capitalism any day. Castro, Stalin, they all had great governments, but unforuntunately, yes, they wanted more, as they always do. Unfortunately, I believe that is the downside of Communism. The leader will always want more. Even more unfortunate is that that will probably always be the way with Communism. Except in Vietnam, where communism seems to work fine, but America needed to get rid of it for stupid reasons. Oh well, I say, to hell with you all!

Well quite, Stalin's administration was utterly exemplary, an illustrious beacon of prescient and benevolent leadership. Granted one neglects to considerthe slaughter of upwards of 30 million inhabitants of his own nation, a succession of inherently self-aggrandising and petty purges that were intrinsically myopic and barbarous, and a form of repression that would make the most ardent neo-Nazi quail.

However in comparison to Hitler, who contrived to be responsible for the deaths of a mere 7-9 million people, he was a luminary of humanity.

I do so implore you to depart immeditaly.

Yes Stalin, Mao Zong, and Castro kinda had a thing called a power trip but this is the exception not the rule. So all you capitolists out there take a good long look at our "wonderful" capitolistic democratic nation and then look at China which is up and coming in teh economic, military and international world. So which ship do you want to be on? Ths sink old fogey capitilistic tug boat or the state of the art sea liner Communism. Take a good look.

Wow, Stalin, Mao and Castro are exceptions? What about Kim Jong, Erich Hoenecker, Nicholas Ceaucescu, Pol Pot, Josip Tito, Horloogiyn Choybalsan ...the list goes on and on. Every single Communist nation saw massive civil and human rights abuses and had a standard of living below that of the West, and all of them collapsed in economic ruin. Communism sounds really great.:rolleyes:

China's doing well because they're getting rid of Communism and opening up to the West and foreign investment; the state-run economy is tottering and people are abandoning it for better opportunity on the free market. If anything, China is the strongest ongoing proof of the uselessness of Communism in the world besides North Korea and Cuba.

i strongly suspect the main problem is one of definitions. what is yours?

He wants the freedom to dispose of his personally accrued wealth as he chooses. He figures that since he may well have worked hard at a job to earn his living, it should be up to him, and not the government, where it goes.

The non-socialist view of freedom generally involves recognition of the right to own wealth, goods and possibly land, and to do what you want with what you own.

Communism is great, and I'd support communism over our capitalism any day. Castro, Stalin, they all had great governments, but unforuntunately, yes, they wanted more, as they always do. Unfortunately, I believe that is the downside of Communism. The leader will always want more. Even more unfortunate is that that will probably always be the way with Communism. Except in Vietnam, where communism seems to work fine, but America needed to get rid of it for stupid reasons. Oh well, I say, to hell with you all!

Starvation, privation, disease, prison camps, random mass executions, and slave labor resulting in 20 million killed...quite a good time. Don't forget the utter devastation of the environment and nonstop shortages lasting in to the 1950's.

Vietnam's Communism didn't work well; try explaining the merits to the tens of thousands of landowners murdered, or the scholars and democracy supporters shipped off to reeducation camps.

Let me tell you something. The unemployment aid in the Western countries is higher than the salary of an engineer or intelectual in a 3rd world country. So you guys don't know what poverty really is. Period.

Someone hasn't heard of inflation.

An engineer in a third world nation might not have as much USD as an unemployed person in a 1st world nation, but the engineer is able to buy a house, a car, et cetera while an unemploed person in the 1st world can hardly afford food.

Period.

...ok this may be off topic but your own a computer right?? yeah well ur on a computer arent you?? yeah well if we were in a communist state the goverment may not give you a computer and then u couldent be able to express yourself..plasma tvs,ipods,laptops,xbox's those things might not even exist if theres no demand for them...just remember that.

Let me tell you something. The unemployment aid in the Western countries is higher than the salary of an engineer or intelectual in a 3rd world country. So you guys don't know what poverty really is. Period.

You do know that $20,000 a year in India is equal to a salary of 70 or 80,000 dollars in the United States? It's called purchasing power parity; things are cheaper in poorer nations, so $1 goes a lot farther than it does in a developed nation.

Someone hasn't heard of inflation.

An engineer in a third world nation might not have as much USD as an unemployed person in a 1st world nation, but the engineer is able to buy a house, a car, et cetera while an unemploed person in the 1st world can hardly afford food.

Period.
i presume that by inflation you mean PPP (purchasing power parity)

Someone hasn't heard of inflation.

An engineer in a third world nation might not have as much USD as an unemployed person in a 1st world nation, but the engineer is able to buy a house, a car, et cetera while an unemploed person in the 1st world can hardly afford food.

Period.
Hahahahaha!!! I live in Romania. The average salary is $200. My father earns about $5-800 per month (in the winter he earns less, because nobody's building when it's cold, so no bonuses). The cheapest car you can buy new costs about 5000 euros, so let's say about $6000. There are state sponsored programs for buying "cheap" new houses costing around 40 000 euros - $50 000.

The cost of living is proportionally higher than in the west. The heating bill alone (with natural gas, since there was that thread about Russia and Ukraine :)) for last month (an unusually warm one) was a bit short of $100. We can afford it, but the average man doesn't. Oh, btw, I almost forgot. From January 1st the natural gas is 19% more expensive. Last winter we had payed over $100 a month for heating, and now the natural gas is twice as expensive as it was (there have been several price increses except for the one of January 1st), so this winter's monthly bill will probably be around $200.

So, using this data, please estimate the cost of living in Romania (not exactly a third world country, but certainly not a 'first' world country either).

So, using this data, please estimate the cost of living in Romania (not exactly a third world country, but certainly not a 'first' world country either).

It's simple; inflationary pressure built up during the Communist era to an extent that it simply exploded out of control after the system fell apart, but at the same time economic damage greatly reduced wages and employment. The same situation is true in all of the former Communist nations; flashfire privatization caused inflation that wages didn't keep up with.

You do know that $20,000 a year in India is equal to a salary of 70 or 80,000 dollars in the United States? It's called purchasing power parity; things are cheaper in poorer nations, so $1 goes a lot farther than it does in a developed nation.

You completely got that backwards. Indian currency is worth less than the dollar - $20,000 is much more translated into whatever the Indian currency is, which is why that $1 goes farther. Do you know why that is? Third-world nations, blah blah blah, you'd say. Well, you're really only partially right - the other part is that China, India, etc. are engaged in unfair trade practices and effective currency manipulation targeted to force outsourcing and support the short-term-profitable everybody-makes-and-saves-the-US-consumes trade model that the upstart Asian markets depend so much on, but are leading us by the nose towards a global market crash.

...ok this may be off topic but your own a computer right?? yeah well ur on a computer arent you?? yeah well if we were in a communist state the goverment may not give you a computer and then u couldent be able to express yourself..plasma tvs,ipods,laptops,xbox's those things might not even exist if theres no demand for them...just remember that.

Absolutely right. A communistic economic-political system doesn't foster innovation, doesn't allow free supply-and-demand to sustain and propogate good products, and prevents citizens from purchasing what they want when they want it, with whatever money they've fairly and rightfully earned and own. Not only that, but rather than this everybody's-hands-joined-as-we-walk-slowly-up-the-ladder-of-wealth/progress idea that communists have, that might eventually allow people to have computers, etc. (as long as everyone has one) such systems actually spiral downwards, as the nature of the system cuts the very means of production, removes people's motivation, and inverses the natural order that fosters growth and progress.

Why is the world so anti-Communism? .


its against my belief system ofLaVeyan Satanism

Stupidity being the first sin

You completely got that backwards. Indian currency is worth less than the dollar - $20,000 is much more translated into whatever the Indian currency is, which is why that $1 goes farther. Do you know why that is? Third-world nations, blah blah blah, you'd say. Well, you're really only partially right - the other part is that China, India, etc. are engaged in unfair trade practices and effective currency manipulation targeted to force outsourcing and support the short-term-profitable everybody-makes-and-saves-the-US-consumes trade model that the upstart Asian markets depend so much on, but are leading us by the nose towards a global market crash.

I was kind of ballparking it to show the effect of PPP, but you are correct.

India and China are two of the most protectionist countries in the world; the yuan is so undervalued that it drives down costs relative to the dollar making labor cheaper. You are correct that removing these barriers would cause the currencies to rise, which would make Indian/Chinese labor more expensive and make the US more competitive in terms of labor costs. And you are very correct that there is a possibility of a market crash in the future if these issues are not resolved.

its against my belief system ofLaVeyan Satanism

Stupidity being the first sin

I may have to look into this belief system, if that's its first sin....is it actually a religion, or otherwise believe in the supernatural? Hope not....

Why is the world so anti-Communism? What the big fucking deal? Communism states that the state controls everything, but no one has any wants because they're provided for by the state.
Why, exactly, should I trust the state? Whether I'm right-wing or left-wing, I still see that the state, whether Communist, fascism, democracy, whatever, is just another person or group of people with authority over me, and the ability to do to me things I do not like, whether or not it wants to provide for me. Democratic or monarchic, it's still just a means of forcing me to do what other people want. AFAIK, the Marxist arguments about capitalism being wrong have a bit to do with coercion, so I don't see why the state is such a good thing to you all.
This is the ideal of Communism. So why are all these capitalist pigs so afraid of something that will make them better.
Because it won't make me any better. I wouldn't even have to be right-wing to realize that it will simply keep things involuntary and bad. On top of that, I have so far only seen Communism go down the 'wrong road', so I'm a bit wary of it.
Capitalism perpetuates mankinds two major failings Greed and Arrogance. With Communism these traits are downsized in an effort to eliminate them. Yes Stalin, Mao Zong, and Castro kinda had a thing called a power trip but this is the exception not the rule.
If they are the exceptions, then surely you can show me many long-lasting Communist states that follow the rule?
Of course, you might have an argument in saying that many of the democratically elected leftists in recent years have been removed from their positions by other governments, but I still don't like the idea of giving the state more power.
So all you capitolists out there take a good long look at our "wonderful" capitolistic democratic nation and then look at China which is up and coming in teh economic, military and international world. So which ship do you want to be on? Ths sink old fogey capitilistic tug boat or the state of the art sea liner Communism. Take a good look.
Isn't it funny how China's economy is good now, but by now it isn't Communist? Much of the means of production are state-owned in name only, and they certainly aren't owned in collective by the people. And there's plenty of private property. And heck, surely if the economy is doing well, it is the business that is doing business there? Surely corporations are capitalist?

If you asked me, I'd say China is a mixed economy leaning towards command economy, but without the 'common good' stuff Communism's got, and with an oligarchic, authoritarian power structure. It seems to me they threw out all the bits of leftism that leftists like.

After reading this entire thread I have to say that every argument in the name of Capitalism/Free Market/"Freedom" (yeah right)/ I've seen all over the place a million times. First what I hear is the "Communism is great in theory but in reality blah blah blah...". People don't realise that ALL governments will be corrupt, oppressive (to an extent), and have some flaws here and there. I am what some might call a realistic Communist, being that I believe the following: 1.) Government control must remain for as long as the country exsists or the result will be complete anarchy (and if there are any anarchists reading this... blow me, you're stupid, now go back to listening to "My Chemical Romance" and leave me alone, anarchy is the stupidest idea I've ever heard.). 2.) Civil rights must be restricted to reasonable extents (that means no more freedom of speech in respects to racism, religious intolerance, and gender inequality.) 3.) Public religious practices are banned, religious recruiting is banned. I have no problem with wiccans/pagans, they never recruit people and start wars. To an extent the "big three" religions are allowed, but ONLY if they are monitered and no recruiting takes place. There are plenty more views but I won't keep the lot of you here all day. The second most heard argument is the "Stalin/Mao/Ho Chi Mihn/Lenin (I've actually heard people say it)/Marshall Tito killed millions of people! They were bad!". I saw this one something like 20 times on this thread. Well guess what retards, countless Presidents killed thousands upon thousands of Native Americans and Slaves. Immigrants died by the thousands every day in deplorable working conditions. The Chinese working on the Trans-Continental Railroad, the Europeans worked to death in sweat shops and factories, the list goes on. Guess who else kills thousands of people: Al Queda. You may ask "but we're fighting them! we're fighting for 'freedom'!". Ok this is going to shock all of you dumbasses out there but guess what... THE UNITED STATES SOLD AL QUEDA ALL OF THEIR WEAPONS. They also trained them in terrorism and urban combat. Why you may ask? To fight Communism. Countless South American Facist dictators were put into power by the United States (they killed plenty of people). Then there's one of the biggest examples of the failure of "freedom": Bosnia. In Bosnia 260,000 were killed as the result of the fall of Communism brought by the pope (self rightious ass-hat.). So when Communism fell there was no government holding back the racists from executing thousands of innocent people. The deaths that were caused by Stalin, Mao, Ho Chi Mihn, and any others were no different than the deaths caused by any of the US Presidents. Those deaths were the result of rapid industrialization, and rapid population growth. People were executed by BOTH governments, the Communists simply carried them out in a much shorter period of time. Finally theres this : "Absolutely right. A communistic economic-political system doesn't foster innovation, doesn't allow free supply-and-demand to sustain and propogate good products, and prevents citizens from purchasing what they want when they want it, with whatever money they've fairly and rightfully earned and own. Not only that, but rather than this everybody's-hands-joined-as-we-walk-slowly-up-the-ladder-of-wealth/progress idea that communists have, that might eventually allow people to have computers, etc. (as long as everyone has one) such systems actually spiral downwards, as the nature of the system cuts the very means of production, removes people's motivation, and inverses the natural order that fosters growth and progress." Thats right because Communists never invented anything, they have no TVs, they have no fun, they have no forms of entertainment at all right? The Soviets were on air before the BBC, the Soviets invented the first synthesiser, and the Soviets poured money into researching micro-electronics for both military AND civilian use. Communism doesn't stunt national growth as some people like to say, Communism moves society forward with a social welfare net and progressive education. The truth is many people have been told over and over again about the "Evil Godless Communists", and have never taken the time to actually think for themselves and move society forward.

so, basically, your anti-freedom, all around?

your solution to inevitable corruption is to drastically increase the size of the thing that is potentially corrupted?

and why do you relate american foreign policy to an arguement against free market capitalism and for communism?

FYI: the us trained and supplied the mujahdeen, not al queda.

Instead of widening a gap, it closes one. It's made to stop poverty and rich-poor divides. Capitalism is much more easily corruptable.

No!!!! USSR's defense minister pocketing 1/8 of his budget is corruptable!

Actually, its pretty efficient if there is a strong enough leader.

When have they had a strong leader!

China was NEVER communist. The only reaosn why people brand it communist was it's strong ties with the soviet union, which still wasn't communist.

china definitely tried communism. it was called "The Great Leap Forward"


Because it causes recessions and depressions. It's too unstable.

Communism on the other hand, is the picture of stability.

so, basically, your anti-freedom, all around?

your solution to inevitable corruption is to drastically increase the size of the thing that is potentially corrupted?

and why do you relate american foreign policy to an arguement against free market capitalism and for communism?

FYI: the us trained and supplied the mujahdeen, not al queda.

American foreign policy has a big impact on the world, mainly destroying economies. (If you don't believe me you're wrong, remember that little thing called "Containment".) My argument was in perfect context, if you can't peice together the entry maybe you shouldn't reply. I was replying to people who posted the arguments that were listed in my entry, if you have a problem with discussing that talk to them. And by the way to all of you who sided with America and Free Market Capitalism, guess what... America isn't Capitalist. America is what is called an oligopoly (hint: look it up it describes the US like nothing else.) And about my stance on freedom, there's a quote by a great man that "hits the nail on the head" for my ideas.

"It is true that liberty is precious; so precious that it must be carefully rationed."
-Vladimir Illyich Ulyanov (Lenin)

And FYI: who the hell do you think Al Queda is? Bin Laden fought the Soviets in Afghanistan, that's where he gained so much political support. The entire network of Al Queda was estabolished by veterans of the Soviet-Afghan war. The CIA gave his family refuge during times of high political tension. Just look it up online, go ahead and check it on google.

American foreign policy has a big impact on the world, mainly destroying economies. (If you don't believe me you're wrong, remember that little thing called "Containment".)

i know, but if your claiming that america's foriegn policy has overall harmed the global economy, you need to do soem reading

My argument was in perfect context, if you can't peice together the entry maybe you shouldn't reply. I was replying to people who posted things on this thread, if you have a problem with discussing that talk to them.

you adressed people defending "Capitalism/Free Market/"Freedom" (yeah right)". and then started talking about corruption, and how limiting freedom was somehow good for this, and talked about stuff that america did in the past. how is this an arguement against free market capitalism? you never seem to make any points against it, and just make straw man attacks against the US.

And by the way to all of you who sided with America and Free Market Capitalism, guess what... America isn't Capitalist. America is what is called an oligopoly (hint: look it up it describes the US like nothing else.)

the US is a mixed economy. an oligopoly describes a particular segment of the market, and i suppose would be accurate for a few parts of the US.

And about my stance on freedom, there's a quote by a great man that "hits the nail on the head" for my ideas.

"It is true that liberty is precious; so precious that it must be carefully rationed."
-Vladimir Illyich Ulyanov (Lenin)

liberty is "precious" because statist assholes like lenin restrict it so much.

And FYI: who the hell do you think Al Queda is? Bin Laden fought the Soviets in Afghanistan, that's where he gained so much political support. The entire network of Al Queda was estabolished by veterans of the Soviet-Afghan war. The CIA gave his family refuge during times of high political tension. Just look it up online, go ahead and check it on google.

al qeuda is a terrorist organization founded by bin laden in the early 90's. the mujahdeen were a guerilla resistance group who we supported with weapons after the soviets invaded (1980), and stopped giving aid long before they turned into the taliban and hosted al qeuda. we never gave any terrorist organization aid, and i still don't know why this is an arguement against capitalism anyways, so please come back when you have one.

i know, but if your claiming that america's foriegn policy has overall harmed the global economy, you need to do soem reading



you adressed people defending "Capitalism/Free Market/"Freedom" (yeah right)". and then started talking about corruption, and how limiting freedom was somehow good for this, and talked about stuff that america did in the past. how is this an arguement against free market capitalism? you never seem to make any points against it, and just make straw man attacks against the US.



the US is a mixed economy. an oligopoly describes a particular segment of the market, and i suppose would be accurate for a few parts of the US.



liberty is "precious" because statist assholes like lenin restrict it so much.



al qeuda is a terrorist organization founded by bin laden in the early 90's. the mujahdeen were a guerilla resistance group who we supported with weapons after the soviets invaded (1980), and stopped giving aid long before they turned into the taliban and hosted al qeuda. we never gave any terrorist organization aid, and i still don't know why this is an arguement against capitalism anyways, so please come back when you have one.


i would also like you to explain why you feel the need to restrict civil liberties so much.

Al Queda was funded by the United States WELL AFTER the Soviet-Afghan war. Bin Laden and the Taliban were given a large surplus of weapons to combat the northern Afghans in their civil war. Why do I feel the need to restrict civil liberties so much? Where should I start? There are plenty of reasons that I believe civil liberties should be restricted. The main reason being that a country with too much freedom given to it's citizens allows the stronger citizens to prey on the weaknesses of the poor, immigrants, and minorites. If you really want a good argument for the evils of Free Market Capitalism look at the early 1900s in the United States. Immigrants were used like cattle, given no kind of health care, housed in tenements not fit for animals, and it finally took laws passed by the government to reform all of these problems. Are those problems fixed? No, they have been improved in the US (or just hidden much better from the public) however most of american buisnesses outsource labor and use the people in other countries like cattle. You may say the Soviets had bad working conditions, used cheap labor, and did many of the things I just listed. But in the early 1900s the Soviet Union had a very poor economy, they didn't have the money to provide good housing and the like. America did, the government did, the companies definatly did, and nothing was done for the workers. And the whole "talking about the past" thing: what do you think everyone else in this whole damn thread are talking about? Most have used the "Stalin killed millions/Mao killed millions" argument, so whats the big deal? And yes, the US did give a terrorist organization aid. In South America, when the US was going after Pablo Escobar (you know the cartel leader) they funded several terrorist organizations and even the Cali Cartel (a rival cartel) to get rid of him. They still fund several facist terrorist groups that are fighting marxist groups in South America. Every super power funds guerilla groups, it just seems that America's groups are the only ones coming back and biting them in the ass. Finally, when you say that "statist assholes like Lenin" take rights away and restrict freedoms, all of American History is riddled with instances of civil rights being taken away. And these aren't because of political ideologies, it has to do with race and gender. The Soviets and Chinese have made plenty of mistakes, but the one mistake they never made was racial and gender inequality. I would also like to state that this thread was started addressing the ideology of Communism and wasn't started as an arugument about the differences between a Command Economy and a Free Market.

If you stay on NS long, you will be a capitalist.

I am not going to say why, but I am relatively sure of it.

I've been on NS almost as long as you (apparently), and I'm a huge anti-Capitalist.

Before I even heard of NS itself, I was actually to the right of the economic scale on the Political Compass (among other political surveys). Not too too far (about +3.50), but still.

Finally, when you say that "statist assholes like Lenin" take rights away and restrict freedoms, all of American History is riddled with instances of civil rights being taken away.
It seems to me you're excluding the middle. Why does disapproving of Communist government make me approve of everything America has done?
It doesn't.
The American government has done plenty of idiotic things, and I'm against those. But that doesn't mean I can't disapprove of other people doing the same thing.

After reading this entire thread I have to say that every argument in the name of Capitalism/Free Market/"Freedom" (yeah right)/ I've seen all over the place a million times. First what I hear is the "Communism is great in theory but in reality blah blah blah...". People don't realise that ALL governments will be corrupt, oppressive (to an extent), and have some flaws here and there.
Well, it's funny that you'd say people don't realize that, seeing as that is one of the major arguments against Communism, and has already been used in this thread.
I am what some might call a realistic Communist, being that I believe the following: 1.) Government control must remain for as long as the country exsists or the result will be complete anarchy (and if there are any anarchists reading this... blow me, you're stupid, now go back to listening to "My Chemical Romance" and leave me alone, anarchy is the stupidest idea I've ever heard.).
Okay, so what exactly makes a Communist government the one to choose?
2.) Civil rights must be restricted to reasonable extents (that means no more freedom of speech in respects to racism, religious intolerance, and gender inequality.)
Why?
Trying to ban people from expressing these opinions would be equivalent to admitting that they actually have a point, IMO.
3.) Public religious practices are banned, religious recruiting is banned. I have no problem with wiccans/pagans, they never recruit people and start wars. To an extent the "big three" religions are allowed, but ONLY if they are monitered and no recruiting takes place.
Again, why? Why not just totally separate Church and State, and then let people do as they wish, instead of trying to meld Church and State in the opposite direction as usual?
There are plenty more views but I won't keep the lot of you here all day. The second most heard argument is the "Stalin/Mao/Ho Chi Mihn/Lenin (I've actually heard people say it)/Marshall Tito killed millions of people! They were bad!". I saw this one something like 20 times on this thread. Well guess what retards, countless Presidents killed thousands upon thousands of Native Americans and Slaves. Immigrants died by the thousands every day in deplorable working conditions. The Chinese working on the Trans-Continental Railroad, the Europeans worked to death in sweat shops and factories, the list goes on. Guess who else kills thousands of people: Al Queda. You may ask "but we're fighting them! we're fighting for 'freedom'!". Ok this is going to shock all of you dumbasses out there but guess what... THE UNITED STATES SOLD AL QUEDA ALL OF THEIR WEAPONS. They also trained them in terrorism and urban combat. Why you may ask? To fight Communism. Countless South American Facist dictators were put into power by the United States (they killed plenty of people). Then there's one of the biggest examples of the failure of "freedom": Bosnia. In Bosnia 260,000 were killed as the result of the fall of Communism brought by the pope (self rightious ass-hat.). So when Communism fell there was no government holding back the racists from executing thousands of innocent people. The deaths that were caused by Stalin, Mao, Ho Chi Mihn, and any others were no different than the deaths caused by any of the US Presidents.
Precisely. Why can't I not want to live under Communism, but also be against the government doing stupid things like that?
Those deaths were the result of rapid industrialization, and rapid population growth. People were executed by BOTH governments, the Communists simply carried them out in a much shorter period of time. Finally theres this : "Absolutely right. A communistic economic-political system doesn't foster innovation, doesn't allow free supply-and-demand to sustain and propogate good products, and prevents citizens from purchasing what they want when they want it, with whatever money they've fairly and rightfully earned and own. Not only that, but rather than this everybody's-hands-joined-as-we-walk-slowly-up-the-ladder-of-wealth/progress idea that communists have, that might eventually allow people to have computers, etc. (as long as everyone has one) such systems actually spiral downwards, as the nature of the system cuts the very means of production, removes people's motivation, and inverses the natural order that fosters growth and progress." Thats right because Communists never invented anything, they have no TVs, they have no fun, they have no forms of entertainment at all right? The Soviets were on air before the BBC, the Soviets invented the first synthesiser, and the Soviets poured money into researching micro-electronics for both military AND civilian use. Communism doesn't stunt national growth as some people like to say, Communism moves society forward with a social welfare net and progressive education. The truth is many people have been told over and over again about the "Evil Godless Communists", and have never taken the time to actually think for themselves and move society forward.
Wait, by "think for themselves", do you mean "think collectively"? It sure seems that way...

You know people can WORK collectivly without THINKING collectivly. They can have thier own opinions and feelings but still work for society instead of for themselves. That is the major difference between the two systems, where as one system promotes the "greed is good" and feeds off of competition. The other helps those in need, holds back predators (large companies and the like), and is devoted to social welfare. On a side note: This whole argument was fun, but it's quite a pain to keep coming back to this forum and taking the time to post. That being said, this will be my last post. Had fun arguing, some good points were made on both sides and we all walk away a little smarter.

I've been on NS almost as long as you (apparently), and I'm a huge anti-Capitalist.

Before I even heard of NS itself, I was actually to the right of the economic scale on the Political Compass (among other political surveys). Not too too far (about +3.50), but still.

He has a ridiculously simplified view of communism and capitalism (I didn't want to say that earlier, because he might have gotten pissed off and started flaming), if only because he is largely ignorant of the issues. So if he continues to start debates with capitalists, and everything he learns will come from a capitalist viewpoint.