NationStates Jolt Archive

...Dude!!!.
Why is everyone anti-communist? i walk into a shop and say "Hello, im a communist!" and people look at me as though im insane. (blinks.)
The fact remains that examples such as the USSR were not communist and china is just a Totalitarian-Economy First society.

Soooo...
WHY be anti-communist?
Your just Anti-USSR or Anti-China.
So... whats your opinions? (blinks)

...Dude!!!.
Why is everyone anti-communist? i walk into a shop and say "Hello, im a communist!" and people look at me as though im insane. (blinks.)
The fact remains that examples such as the USSR were not communist and china is just a Totalitarian-Economy First society.

Soooo...
WHY be anti-communist?
Your just Anti-USSR or Anti-China.
So... whats your opinions? (blinks)

I wouldn't compare the USSR and China, USSR had much higher living standars, was a lot better then the west when it comes to think like health, and schools, but they had a little lower per capta economy couse they had no colonies in the third world, china is just a billion people sweat shop"communist"

...Dude!!!.
Why is everyone anti-communist? i walk into a shop and say "Hello, im a communist!" and people look at me as though im insane. (blinks.)
The fact remains that examples such as the USSR were not communist and china is just a Totalitarian-Economy First society.

Soooo...
WHY be anti-communist?
Your just Anti-USSR or Anti-China.
So... whats your opinions? (blinks)


You know, if you walked intoa shop and said:

"Hi! I'm a mainstream hetro centrist!"

people would probably look at you as if you were insane.

Why?

Because people are there to buy bread, not to hear uninteresting and irrelevant personal facts about strangers. And most people who AREN'T insane understand that.

You know, if you walked intoa shop and said:

"Hi! I'm a mainstream hetro centrist!"

people would probably look at you as if you were insane.

Why?

Because people are there to buy bread, not to hear uninteresting and irrelevant personal facts about strangers. And most people who AREN'T insane understand that.

hmm, thats the best reply so far, people are there to buy shit, not to learn about

"my name is bill an i am an alcoholik"

I think socialism is good in many of it's forms.
I think people seem to think there are no flaws with capitalism.
Like how fat cats sit on soon-to-be-wasted money.
Then if I say "well that's why the economy should be publicly owned" they scowl and say "But that's COMMUNISM!!"

Also people fail to see that when everyone earnes the same amount of money/has an equal quality of life, that economic value is no longer an issue when getting a job. So people won't stop being doctors, on the contrary, you'll get better ones.

^Its all the little things like that which are part of socialism that makes me support it so much.

And for those who say "look at the Soviet Union, that was socialism"
...look at Nazi Germany, that was capitalism... no shit!

I think racists and other prejudices loons tend to be anti communist, because it means they must commune with people who are different, and create a joint effort to make society better.

...Dude!!!.
Why is everyone anti-communist? i walk into a shop and say "Hello, im a communist!" and people look at me as though im insane. (blinks.)
The fact remains that examples such as the USSR were not communist and china is just a Totalitarian-Economy First society.

Soooo...
WHY be anti-communist?
Your just Anti-USSR or Anti-China.
So... whats your opinions? (blinks)

Because communism was always played on as a terrible system that killed people. No one ever thought of then as otherwise. It would be better for them to think it was the leaders of communism who killed an not the system itself.

You know, if you walked intoa shop and said:

"Hi! I'm a mainstream hetro centrist!"

people would probably look at you as if you were insane.

Why?

Because people are there to buy bread, not to hear uninteresting and irrelevant personal facts about strangers. And most people who AREN'T insane understand that.

I think it was a joke.

I wouldn't compare the USSR and China, USSR had much higher living standars, was a lot better then the west when it comes to think like health, and schools

I mostly agree with that. USSR was far from perfect, and political repression is not acceptable, but USSR also had some positive sides. They had a very good education and health care system, they had no homeless people or other very poor, ...

And it's also true they had all that without third world countries to exploit, and starting from a very low level, and with a non-favorable history. Remember that in 1917, Russia was a rural, illiterate, very poor pre-capitalist country. And despite 2 world wars on their own ground (and USSR paid the highest price during WW2, more than a third of the total death in WW2 were from USSR (20-25 millions on about 60 millions)) and a civil war, they managed to become quickly the second world power, and to beat USA in most steps of the space race.

Too bad Gorbatchev's Perestroika collapsed... a democratic USSR could have changed the world, for the best.

I think socialism is good in many of it's forms.
I think people seem to think there are no flaws with capitalism.
Like how fat cats sit on soon-to-be-wasted money.
Then if I say "well that's why the economy should be publicly owned" they scowl and say "But that's COMMUNISM!!"

Also people fail to see that when everyone earnes the same amount of money/has an equal quality of life, that economic value is no longer an issue when getting a job. So people won't stop being doctors, on the contrary, you'll get better ones.

^Its all the little things like that which are part of socialism that makes me support it so much.

And for those who say "look at the Soviet Union, that was socialism"
...look at Nazi Germany, that was capitalism... no shit!

I think racists and other prejudices loons tend to be anti communist, because it means they must commune with people who are different, and create a joint effort to make society better.

Erm, no. Socialism does not work. It only works if absolutely the whole country agrees, which it will not.

A public economy is communism. Capitalism, intelligently, draws on different resources.

I mostly agree with that. USSR was far from perfect, and political repression is not acceptable, but USSR also had some positive sides. They had a very good education and health care system, they had no homeless people or other very poor, ...

And it's also true they had all that without third world countries to exploit, and starting from a very low level, and with a non-favorable history. Remember that in 1917, Russia was a rural, illiterate, very poor pre-capitalist country. And despite 2 world wars on their own ground (and USSR paid the highest price during WW2, more than a third of the total death in WW2 were from USSR (20-25 millions on about 60 millions)) and a civil war, they managed to become quickly the second world power, and to beat USA in
most steps of the space race.

Too bad Gorbatchev's Perestroika collapsed... a democratic USSR could have changed the world, for the best.
Problem would be that if it became democratic it would be bought by its enemyes, but this happened even without democracy, as the people who were elected were killed by jeltsin, in the 93 attack on the duma, a democratic ussr would e a model for progress, and later turn into a democratc wourld unity to turn huminty out of this planet and into space:eek:

Because communism was always played on as a terrible system that killed people. No one ever thought of then as otherwise. It would be better for them to think it was the leaders of communism who killed an not the system itself.

What about Pairs' Commune ? Allende's Chile ? Nowaday Venezula ? And there are many other examples, but I'll stick to the ones I know the best. Many attempts to build a democratic "communism" existed in different times of history. Most of them failed, not because of "communism" itself, but because of the violent counter-revolution from capitalists, who could not admit it.

And since it's easier to survive a civil war or a coup attempt when you're ruling with an ironfist, the non-democatric "sociliast" (and that's not communism, btw) states survived more often... but it doesn't mean that "communism" in itself is a terrible system. Only that capitalism is a terrible system which doesn't allow alternatives to exist.

If I ran a bakery, and someone came in shouting "I am a communist!" my first thought would likely be "Oh, balls, he thinks he's entitled to bread according to his need", and then I'd arm myself with a sourdough to be on the safe side.

If I ran a bakery, and someone came in shouting "I am a communist!" my first thought would likely be "Oh, balls, he thinks he's entitled to bread according to his need", and then I'd arm myself with a sourdough to be on the safe side.

:D

I wouldn't compare the USSR and China, USSR had much higher living standars, was a lot better then the west when it comes to think like health, and schools
I am a Russian. Also I am a doctor. I am laughing heartily.

I mostly agree with that. USSR was far from perfect, and political repression is not acceptable, but USSR also had some positive sides. They had a very good education and health care system, they had no homeless people or other very poor, ...

...
We had them aplenty. So-called 'bichi' (byvshiy intelligentniy chelovek -- former intelligent people) and 'bomzhi' (bez opredelyonnogo mesta zhitel'stva -- of no fixed abode) were at the bottom of the Soviet social ladder, working illegally on low-paid jobs. Most of them were alcoholics or ex-cons.

Why is everyone anti-communist?

This might have happened in the 50's, but I'm afraid you grossly overestimate the importance of communism since the end of the Cold War. They aren't shocked that you're a communist, they just don't care.

I'd agree with what seems to be a general sentiment, people are surprised you come out with it in inappropriate situations, not disapproving.

I mostly agree with that. USSR was far from perfect, and political repression is not acceptable, but USSR also had some positive sides. They had a very good education and health care system, they had no homeless people or other very poor, ...
Well, of course the Soviets had a very unique and creative way to make sure that there were no "homeless" people, they just shipped them off to forced labor facilities. Indeed. Did you all know that by the late 1970's, nearly seventy percent of the Soviet economy was driven by slave labor? Yeah, that's what I call economic quality. And even despite all that, the Soviet system still managed to have an actual shrinking economy. Not just slowing growth rates, which is what we in the west call a recession, an actual shrinking economy. By the middle of the nineteen seventies Japan had a larger economy than the Soviet Union, and West Germany was not far behind Japan in surpassing them. Some of the primary reasons for immediate post-war growth in the Soviet Union is the fact that they literally stripped the factories out of Eastern Germany, and set them back up in the Rodina. Need I say anything about the quality of East bloc products? How about the famed East German Trabant, pinnacle of automotive engineering. It's fucking made out of painted cardboard and a two cycle lawnmower engine! Not only that, they had to build fortifications to keep their people from RUNNING AWAY. It's always going to set off alarms in my mind when there are guns on the border pointing inward as well as outward.

Not only that, but their infrastructure was collapsing, because they spent 40% of their economic output on military expenditures. Think about that. At it's utmost highest (during the Korean War) the US was spending perhaps 8% on military expenditures. During the Reagan years I don't believe that military expenditures even topped 5%.

And as to the statement that the Soviets had no colonies or foreign dependencies: What the hell history class did you take? Have you ever heard of the Soviet Republics that are now independent states? Of the occupation and repression of Eastern and Central Europe? Of Cuba? Angola? Syria? Egypt? Libya? Vietnam? North Korea? China in the fifties? I don't know what you're talking about at all.

Maybe I'm just a cold warrior at heart, but just this simple, off the top of my head list seems to be pretty damning in my personal opinion.


-----

Oh yeah, the reason they looked at you funny in the shop is because people typically don't march into a store and proudly wave the colors of their ideology.

I wouldn't compare the USSR and China, USSR had much higher living standars, was a lot better then the west when it comes to think like health, and schools, but they had a little lower per capta economy couse they had no colonies in the third world, china is just a billion people sweat shop"communist"
Oh yea, coz standard of living and mass-murdering a la Stalin is far more preferable than freedom of the press, freedom of speech, or the right to bear arms in self-defence! :headbang: :headbang:

Why is it that there are still communist apologetics that try to glorify the USSR and China?

We had them aplenty. So-called 'bichi' (byvshiy intelligentniy chelovek -- former intelligent people) and 'bomzhi' (bez opredelyonnogo mesta zhitel'stva -- of no fixed abode) were at the bottom of the Soviet social ladder, working illegally on low-paid jobs. Most of them were alcoholics or ex-cons.

Please do not bother Soviet apologists with such insignificant things as the facts! ;)

...Dude!!!.
Why is everyone anti-communist? i walk into a shop and say "Hello, im a communist!" and people look at me as though im insane. (blinks.)
The fact remains that examples such as the USSR were not communist and china is just a Totalitarian-Economy First society.

Soooo...
WHY be anti-communist?
Your just Anti-USSR or Anti-China.
So... whats your opinions? (blinks)

Wait, if you're really a communist, why were you in a shop?

The USSR and the PRC were/are communist countries.

People look at you commies as being 'insane' largely due to your inability to face facts. People like you - that is, people calling themselves communists - set up and run the PRC and the USSR.

Now from my perspective, you're attempt to divorce yourselves from the rest of them is just one collaborative No True Scotsman fallacy. You're willing to redefine communism to mean "MY interpretation" so that by definition, the USSR and the PRC communists were not "real" communists like you supposedly are.

But it doesn't work like that. You're all commies. Deal with it.

And as to the statement that the Soviets had no colonies or foreign dependencies: What the hell history class did you take? Have you ever heard of the Soviet Republics that are now independent states? Of the occupation and repression of Eastern and Central Europe? Of Cuba? Angola? Syria? Egypt? Libya? Vietnam? North Korea? China in the fifties? I don't know what you're talking about at all.

Actually, they were countries under influence, but they weren't colonies. They had the choice to think differently, but they chose not to and listen to Russia's advice.

The USSR and the PRC were/are communist countries.

Actually, as long as there are leaders then there is no real communist system. As long as somebody who is titled as being higher than everyone else it is not communist. China was never communist - it was a Nationalist, and now its an Authoritarian with a Capitalist economy.

Russia was the birth of Communist ideologies, but it was never communist. It certainly tried to be communist, but they couldn't and just labelled themselves as communist.

... the people who were elected were killed by jeltsin, in the 93 attack on the duma...
I'd like to hear a name of at least one elected deputy killed by Yeltsin in 1993.

Actually, they were countries under influence, but they weren't colonies. They had the choice to think differently, but they chose not to and listen to Russia's advice.
Only a handful of the countries I listed chose to think differently at any point in time. First is the PRC, and they split from the Soviets simply because they were large enough to. The Vietnamese also split from the Soviet line, but that's a function of the Sino-Soviet split, not of the Soviets allowing them to break off from their empire. Eastern and Central Europe on the other hand had no ability to split from the Soviet influence, as evidenced by the end result of the "Prague Spring" incident. Beyond that, the term I used was dependencies. It fits for both the Western powers as well as the Soviets. You have to remember that one of the powers championing decolonization was the United States, and is one of the primary reasons that the British gave up their control of India.

Please do not bother Soviet apologists with such insignificant things as the facts! ;)
...
I'm trying to reach out to the doubting ones. :)

Only a handful of the countries I listed chose to think differently at any point in time. First is the PRC, and they split from the Soviets simply because they were large enough to. The Vietnamese also split from the Soviet line, but that's a function of the Sino-Soviet split, not of the Soviets allowing them to break off from their empire. Eastern and Central Europe on the other hand had no ability to split from the Soviet influence, as evidenced by the end result of the "Prague Spring" incident. ...
Actually, Yugoslavia and Albania did.

Russia was the birth of Communist ideologies, but it was never communist. It certainly tried to be communist, but they couldn't and just labelled themselves as communist.

"Trying to be communist" in light of an entire nation means it IS communist by definition. It doesn't have to be, full-on, as-defined-by-Marxist-purists, Communism to be described rightfully as a communist country. It was governed and began by card-carrying Communists who were espousing the ideals of Communism in an attempt to create Communism. It was thus communist.

Otherwise, we can just say nothing is what it "really" is. The US is not "really" a republic since states rights are so limited. It's not "really" democracy since convicts can't vote. It's not "really" representative because of the electoral college. Etc etc.

Only a handful of the countries I listed chose to think differently at any point in time. First is the PRC, and they split from the Soviets simply because they were large enough to. The Vietnamese also split from the Soviet line, but that's a function of the Sino-Soviet split, not of the Soviets allowing them to break off from their empire. Eastern and Central Europe on the other hand had no ability to split from the Soviet influence, as evidenced by the end result of the "Prague Spring" incident. Beyond that, the term I used was dependencies. It fits for both the Western powers as well as the Soviets. You have to remember that one of the powers championing decolonization was the United States, and is one of the primary reasons that the British gave up their control of India.

The PRC had strong political and economic trade (mostly weapons) with the USSR, but I'm not sure about them breaking off from the Soviet Union entirely.

We had them aplenty. So-called 'bichi' (byvshiy intelligentniy chelovek -- former intelligent people) and 'bomzhi' (bez opredelyonnogo mesta zhitel'stva -- of no fixed abode) were at the bottom of the Soviet social ladder, working illegally on low-paid jobs. Most of them were alcoholics or ex-cons.
How do you call the present day capitalist mafia in russian?
Did you live there in the 60's?

Actually, Yugoslavia and Albania did.
But these were two states that never had signifigant Red Army presence. Marshall Tito, for his faults, did lead a fairly successful campaign against the German occupation, and as a result the Red Army was not in Yugoslavia in any quantity resembling that of the other East Bloc countries.

The PRC had strong political and economic trade (mostly weapons) with the USSR, but I'm not sure about them breaking off from the Soviet Union entirely.
Oh, believe me, when the two countries went to war, they definitely broke off entirely. So much so that the Soviets repeatedly asked President Nixon if the US would allow the Soviet military to use tactical nuclear weapons in the Chinese theater if it got really bad for 'em.

How do you call the present day capitalist mafia in russian?
Erm... a loaded question, I gather. In our country being a capitalist is not the same as being a leading member of organized crime syndicate.

...Dude!!!.
Why is everyone anti-communist? i walk into a shop and say "Hello, im a communist!" and people look at me as though im insane. (blinks.)
The fact remains that examples such as the USSR were not communist and china is just a Totalitarian-Economy First society.

Soooo...
WHY be anti-communist?
Your just Anti-USSR or Anti-China.
So... whats your opinions? (blinks)First guess... most people would say "Hello, My name is..." and not Hello, I'm a Communist."

perhaps you should try introducing yourself with your name first. :D

...
Did you live there in the 60's?
No, I was born in 1978. My parents did, of course. :)

"Trying to be communist" in light of an entire nation means it IS communist by definition. It doesn't have to be, full-on, as-defined-by-Marxist-purists, Communism to be described rightfully as a communist country. It was governed and began by card-carrying Communists who were espousing the ideals of Communism in an attempt to create Communism. It was thus communist.

Otherwise, we can just say nothing is what it "really" is. The US is not "really" a republic since states rights are so limited. It's not "really" democracy since convicts can't vote. It's not "really" representative because of the electoral college. Etc etc.

I distinctly said no 'real communist' country. That's the assertion I was placing when I said that.

But these were two states that never had signifigant Red Army presence. Marshall Tito, for his faults, did lead a fairly successful campaign against the German occupation, and as a result the Red Army was not in Yugoslavia in any quantity resembling that of the other East Bloc countries.
Yes, certainly it was one of the factors contributing to the choice of that countries, along with Tito's pride and Hoxha's fanaticism.

...Dude!!!.
Why is everyone anti-communist? i walk into a shop and say "Hello, im a communist!" and people look at me as though im insane. (blinks.)
The fact remains that examples such as the USSR were not communist and china is just a Totalitarian-Economy First society.

Soooo...
WHY be anti-communist?
Your just Anti-USSR or Anti-China.
So... whats your opinions? (blinks)

Because you're an attention seeker who just wants the idea of "being different" by conforming to the very conformist "youth rebellion" of "punk communism"*.

Also, what kind of asshat walks into a shop and goes "I'm communist!" That's just saying "PLZ LUK AT ME IM SO DIFRUNT!"

And the reason people (not many really) are anti-communist, is because it's a stupid ideology. You don't like your job in Capitalism? Quit and get a new one. You don't like your job in Communism? Tough shit, your life for the state, you oppressed drone you!

*punk communism is the act of "believing in" communism to be different or cool

Because you're an attention seeker who just wants the idea of "being different" by conforming to the very conformist "youth rebellion" of "punk communism"*.

Also, what kind of asshat walks into a shop and goes "I'm communist!" That's just saying "PLZ LUK AT ME IM SO DIFRUNT!"

And the reason people (not many really) are anti-communist, is because it's a stupid ideology. You don't like your job in Capitalism? Quit and get a new one. You don't like your job in Communism? Tough shit, your life for the state, you oppressed drone you!

*punk communism is the act of "believing in" communism to be different or cool

... just because i listen to Emo-Punk music and wear Gothic clothing and all that doesnt necesarilly mean im an attention seeker. I only do that on forums. (glances round)
Where theres less chance of me getting hit.

By the way, i didnt REALLY go into a shop and say that... your all thinking i did... thats pretty messed up. Its a metaphor. When i talk about politics with people, i say "Im a communist :D" and they go :confused: or :mad: or :rolleyes:

... just because i listen to Emo-Punk music and wear Gothic clothing and all that doesnt necesarilly mean im an attention seeker. I only do that on forums. (glances round)
Where theres less chance of me getting hit.

I listen to emo-rock and just rock overall, I also wear skater clothing. That doesn't impact on my politics in the least.

And as someone had already said, the whole Communist rebellion thing has been done to death. Pick another, properly 'individual' ideology.

I listen to emo-rock and just rock overall, I also wear skater clothing. That doesn't impact on my politics in the least.

And as someone had already said, the whole Communist rebellion thing has been done to death. Pick another, properly 'individual' ideology.

emo-rock rocks. Now im gonna go slit my wrists ;p
NOoOOo my thread is dying!!! Get talking!

Why is everyone anti-communist?

I'm not. But, then again, I put my beliefs into practice - as much as I can, anyway, until the US wakes up from its capitalist nightmare.

I certainly don't feel the need to walk into a shop and announce it.

I'm not. But, then again, I put my beliefs into practice - as much as I can, anyway, until the US wakes up from its capitalist nightmare.

I certainly don't feel the need to walk into a shop and announce it.

I didnt do it reallY! Grr... Im not like my friend who sold her soul on ebay! i dont do weird things!

I'm not. But, then again, I put my beliefs into practice - as much as I can, anyway, until the US wakes up from its capitalist nightmare.

I certainly don't feel the need to walk into a shop and announce it.

Wakes up from its capitalist nightmare? You mean the beliefs that made it such a strong country.

Have fun in poor, crappy post-capitalist America with your commie chums - noone else will.

This might have happened in the 50's, but I'm afraid you grossly overestimate the importance of communism since the end of the Cold War. They aren't shocked that you're a communist, they just don't care.
Yeah if you walked in and said that in the 50s, they would have ganged up and killed you with stale loafs of bread.

Why is Democracy so overrated? :(

...Dude!!!.
Why is everyone anti-communist? i walk into a shop and say "Hello, im a communist!" and people look at me as though im insane. (blinks.)
The fact remains that examples such as the USSR were not communist and china is just a Totalitarian-Economy First society.

Soooo...
WHY be anti-communist?
Your just Anti-USSR or Anti-China.
So... whats your opinions? (blinks)

I generally hate Communists with a passion. I have lost family at the hands of Communists in Korea, Cuba, and Vietnam.

I am anti-Communist because Communists have the moral depravity of thieves. They want to sieze my property that I worked hard to earn and distribute it to everyone else and then force me into a job I am going to hate because it's what the State requires. I hate Communists because they don't let the individual decide.

I also hate it when Communists distance themselves from failed Communists experiments like Russia, China, North Korea, Cuba, etc. They say, "Well, that's not true Communism." Well duh, that's because true Communism cannot work! That's what they were aiming for in the beginning, but the result is always inevitable and the same, a decadent, authoritarian, abomination of a state. The market is inescapable. Desire is inescapable. Capitalism is inescapable.

I hate Communists because they are usually naive teenagers living in a fantasy world.

I find it amusing when Communists talk about siezing power in Washington. Haha, yeah right... it isn't going to happen. I kind of hope it does happen. I'd love a chance to frag some Communist scum in the name of Liberty. :sniper:

Democracy isn't over-rated. It isn't, perhaps, as effective accomplishment wise as a Dictatorship.

However, in a democracy, you can't put to death 70% of a party that elected you. That happened somewhere, once...

Is anyone else really tired of hearing the "But it wasn't REAL communism!!!!" whine? After so many attemps at communism, they all turn out like this. This is Socialism - it is Marx's brutal blender for society before the slurry is poured through a fine tube into the daquiri glass of communism. "Violence is the midwife that brings the new society out of the old one." That is to say, "Murder people until you have no opposition, and then make everything nice."

Doesn't work that way. This is the transition state to communism and it doesn't work because people don't like being murdered much. Even the semi-agrarian paradise of Cuba that commies hold aloft like a torch of hope is constantly revealing more reasons to abhor it. Give the average Cuban a canoe and a rabbits foot and he'll probably start paddling towards the States.

Rar. Also, this: https://www.protestwarrior.com/store/product.php?productid=3

Best shirt EVAR!!11

"They make a graveyard and call it peace"

May have been said of the Romans. But it still holds true.

Nothing wrong with putting a bit of social co-ooperation into your life, looking after the less fortunate, etc

But. It has to be the individual's decision. You can't force people to care.


The basic unit of humanity is the human. An individual. We are a social animal, but the individual comes before the group. You say that leads to greed, exploitation, etc. I say teach people, lead by example, win them around, (carefully) use government action... It's not impossible. Make it socially unacceptable to maltreat homeless people and...I'm not saying it'll stop, but it will happen much less.

Because most people are well indoctrinated.

Soooo...
WHY be anti-communist?
Your just Anti-USSR or Anti-China.
No, I'm pretty sure I'm against other communism too, unless I changed my mind while I wasn't looking.

"They make a graveyard and call it peace"
Minor and irrelevant correction "they make a desert and call it peace"

I'm in favor of a country where communists/socialists are democratically elected. You get all the benefits of sharing without taking away the individual's choice.

Could anyone give me the name of a good book on Capitalism and its ideas, demonstrating its advantages and disadvantages?

Democracy isn't over-rated. It isn't, perhaps, as effective accomplishment wise as a Dictatorship.

However, in a democracy, you can't put to death 70% of a party that elected you. That happened somewhere, once...

Is anyone else really tired of hearing the "But it wasn't REAL communism!!!!" whine? After so many attemps at communism, they all turn out like this. This is Socialism - it is Marx's brutal blender for society before the slurry is poured through a fine tube into the daquiri glass of communism. "Violence is the midwife that brings the new society out of the old one." That is to say, "Murder people until you have no opposition, and then make everything nice."

Doesn't work that way. This is the transition state to communism and it doesn't work because people don't like being murdered much. Even the semi-agrarian paradise of Cuba that commies hold aloft like a torch of hope is constantly revealing more reasons to abhor it. Give the average Cuban a canoe and a rabbits foot and he'll probably start paddling towards the States.

Rar. Also, this: https://www.protestwarrior.com/store/product.php?productid=3

Best shirt EVAR!!11

I love the link you posted, it come from a so highly intelectual and useful internet site. This is pretty obivious especially when I see things like that written on poster: "Hey France, you shut the hell up, We'll protect civilization"

BTW, for those too stupid to understand a sarcasm, it was one...

Most people who were killed "by communism" actually has been killed by brutal, capitalist-financed, anti-communist groups who slayed without any doubt men, women and children.

And remember that thousand of people where put in jail in the 50s only because of their political belief. God bless America, land of the free.

BTW, that was another sarcasm

Wakes up from its capitalist nightmare? You mean the beliefs that made it such a strong country.

Errr ... yeah. Did you know Capitalism nearly died in this country after the big crash in the 1920s? A huge movement re-examining Capitalism began after that just as the huge anti-Communist movement has begun in the wake of certain not-so nice nations and the bad things that happen there.

Study a little history. It'll be good for ya.

i walk into a shop and say "Hello, im a communist!" and people look at me as though im insane.

ummm first off why did you walk into a shop and say "hello, im a communist!"...were you announcing it to the world or somthing?

I distinctly said no 'real communist' country. That's the assertion I was placing when I said that.

Yeah, it's the typical communist changing the goal posts to avoid dirtying the great name of communism with the PRC or the USSR.

I wouldn't compare the USSR and China, USSR had much higher living standars, was a lot better then the west when it comes to think like health, and schools, but they had a little lower per capta economy couse they had no colonies in the third world, china is just a billion people sweat shop"communist"

a "little lower per capita economy"?

the USSR's economy sucked balls. Why? Because of the forced redistribution of wealth: you take away financial freedom, stealing from the productive and giving their money to the unproductive. (could go into far more detail but i'm eating. hehe)

Yeah, it's the typical communist changing the goal posts to avoid dirtying the great name of communism with the PRC or the USSR.

The USSR, PRC, DPRK, etc. were(are) both vile entities that went(go) against everything I stand for. I don't understand the problem with me -and most communists here- believing this.

I don't pretend that every supporter of capitalism thinks that Pinochet or McCarthy were great people...

Why be anti-Communist? Because Communism and its little brother Socialism are a blight upon mankind, spreading misery wherever they touch. Yeah, I'm talking about Europe too. For all their "higher standards of living" a whopping 15% of French and 12% of Germans say they are optimistic about the future. America (the Evil Capitalist Empire) was somewhere in the 60% range.

Why is Democracy so overrated? :(
A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, in which the 51% may take away the rights of the other 49%
-Thomas Jefferson

On Salvador Allende:
from "Latin America: Its Problems and Its Promise" A Multidisciplnary Introduction Fourth Edition, edited by Jan Knippers Black 2005

From Page 519:
Allende's inauguration as president represented the first time that a coalition dominated by the Marxist parties took control of the executive. The coalition had compaigned on a program designed to initiate a transition to socialism while preserving Chile's traditional democratic freedoms and constitutional procedures.

Resorting to executive powers, the government purchased or took over a broad range of industries as well as the private banking sector, and accelerated expropriation of farmland. The government also quickly set in motion a plan to raise wages, salaries, and benefits, particularly for the lowest-paid workers and to increase the social services in poor communities.

(this is where it gets good)

The policies were apparently successful as the economic growth rate during 1971 was the best in decades. The initially favourable economic trends were however, quickly reversed. Inflationary pressures strengthened, particularly since government deficit spending increased as a result of greater tax evasion. By the end of 1972, inflation had reached 164% and currency emissions accounted for over 40% of the budget. Foreign exchange reserves dwindled as Chile imported more food and equipment with less recourse to credit.

(The socialist experiment in Chile was NOT working)

I'm in favor of a country where communists/socialists are democratically elected. You get all the benefits of sharing without taking away the individual's choice.

How does an electoral system in which all candidates are forced stand for the same essential principles reap the benefits of democracy?

The USSR, PRC, DPRK, etc. were(are) both vile entities that went(go) against everything I stand for. I don't understand the problem with me -and most communists here- believing this.

I don't pretend that every supporter of capitalism thinks that Pinochet or McCarthy were great people...

Strawman. I don't pretend that every supporter of communism supported the USSR or PRC.

However, I do claim that they're communist states. You see, they were run by and started by communists.

Now if I'm supposed to hear you (another communist) and go "Oh okay, *you're* the real communist, those millions were the *fake* communists" what's to stop me from saying the opposite, that maybe THEY are the real communists and you're the fake ones?

I say you're ALL communists ... because you say you are.

To me it's like Protestants saying how they're the real Christians and Catholics are the devil-worshipping heathens and vice versa. I'm an atheist. To my limited and crude outsider's opinion, they're all Christians, they all follow Christ, they all call themselves Christians and attend church.

It's not because I tell I'm something that I'm actually that thing. If you tell me you're handsome and intelligent, it's only your opinion of yourself... so those stalinists who think they're communist, they aren't really communist, in my opinion anyways.

It's not because I tell I'm something that I'm actually that thing. If you tell me you're handsome and intelligent, it's only your opinion of yourself... so those stalinists who think they're communist, they aren't really communist, in my opinion anyways.

I've seen this argument again and again. Intelligence can be quantified and measured. More importantly though, an idealogy is nothing except that which is carried by it's proponents. If I tell you I'm a "Democrat," you don't go around saying "Aha? But do you believe in DIRECT Democracy? no? Then you're not really a Democrat!" do you? Because idealogy is not like intelligence; it can't be quantified. It's really little more than a belief. As such we have to take people's word that they do, in fact, believe what they say they believe otherwise we spend all our time trying to say "no you don't!" and "yes I do!" ad nauseum.

If you believe in Communism you're a communist. It doesn't matter whether you've managed to create the communist utopia yet.

I've seen this argument again and again. Intelligence can be quantified and measured. More importantly though, an idealogy is nothing except that which is carried by it's proponents. If I tell you I'm a "Democrat," you don't go around saying "Aha? But do you believe in DIRECT Democracy? no? Then you're not really a Democrat!" do you? Because idealogy is not like intelligence; it can't be quantified. It's really little more than a belief. As such we have to take people's word that they do, in fact, believe what they say they believe otherwise we spend all our time trying to say "no you don't!" and "yes I do!" ad nauseum.

If you believe in Communism you're a communist. It doesn't matter whether you've managed to create the communist utopia yet.

First, in my opinion, intelligence can't be quantified. Because someone is better than someone else at a conventional task, he's more intelligent? Because some had a better score in some useless IQ test he's more intelligent? Everyone is intelligent, in their own way.

I noticed you didn't reply to the my arguement about being handsome, 'cause it's another thing that can't be quantified.

Karl Marx never said communism was about enslaving thousands of people and put them in work camps, and killing anyone who didn't beleive in your ideology, including those who want the communist party, even if they do share, well technicly the same ideology. But in reality, stalinists aren't communist, they're only some facists who used the fact peopel beleived they were communist to take power. If ypu beleive those people are communist, you're one of the most naive person I ever seen...

Why am I anti-communist?

Oh, don't get me wrong, the USSR and the PRC aren't favorites of mine, but they're not even communist. They're socialist oligarchies, really. China's getting better but their human rights and political freedoms are still shit and there's still too much state owned.

So why do I think communism is stupid? Because it can't work now, if ever. Far too many changes in human behavior and society for it to work, at least in the Western world on a scale large enough to govern.

Oh, and maybe because I'm a capitalist and believe that a truly egalatarian society is not possible when people have different levels of skill. But that's another debate.

So there you have it.

First, in my opinion, intelligence can't be quantified. Because someone is better than someone else at a conventional task, he's more intelligent? Because some had a better score in some useless IQ test he's more intelligent? Everyone is intelligent, in their own way.

Oh okay. And everyone is communist, in their own way. Stalinists are communists, in their own way. You are a communist, in your own way. I'm a communist in MY way.

I mean hey, why bother having a word unless we generalize it's meaning to include every human being on earth?

But the point remains. Claiming to be intelligent doesn't make you intelligent. Claiming to be a communist makes you a communist. Look up the definition sometime.


I noticed you didn't reply to the my arguement about being handsome, 'cause it's another thing that can't be quantified.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Idealogy is not.

Karl Marx never said communism was about enslaving thousands of people and put them in work camps, and killing anyone who didn't beleive in your ideology, including those who want the communist party, even if they do share, well technicly the same ideology.

They share the idealogy, they espouse it, they are called Communists (the Communist Party) and so calling them communists is NOT far-fetched and outrageous as you seem to think.

You just don't like it because it associates your favored communists - Marx and people like you - with your 'bad' communists. You'd rather the distinction be definitely made even in language, to the point of only calling the good - aka "real" or "true" or "orthodox" - communists, communists.

But in reality, stalinists aren't communist, they're only some facists who used the fact peopel beleived they were communist to take power. If ypu beleive those people are communist, you're one of the most naive person I ever seen...

...maybe I am naive. Maybe I'm naive when someone on this board claims to be a communist and I don't disagree. Maybe I'm naive when anyone claims to be a communist in a world where the Communist Utopian Ideal has obviously not been achieved. Maybe there ARE no communists! ;)

On Salvador Allende:
from "Latin America: Its Problems and Its Promise" A Multidisciplnary Introduction Fourth Edition, edited by Jan Knippers Black 2005

From Page 519:
Allende's inauguration as president represented the first time that a coalition dominated by the Marxist parties took control of the executive. The coalition had compaigned on a program designed to initiate a transition to socialism while preserving Chile's traditional democratic freedoms and constitutional procedures.

Resorting to executive powers, the government purchased or took over a broad range of industries as well as the private banking sector, and accelerated expropriation of farmland. The government also quickly set in motion a plan to raise wages, salaries, and benefits, particularly for the lowest-paid workers and to increase the social services in poor communities.

(this is where it gets good)

The policies were apparently successful as the economic growth rate during 1971 was the best in decades. The initially favourable economic trends were however, quickly reversed. Inflationary pressures strengthened, particularly since government deficit spending increased as a result of greater tax evasion. By the end of 1972, inflation had reached 164% and currency emissions accounted for over 40% of the budget. Foreign exchange reserves dwindled as Chile imported more food and equipment with less recourse to credit.

(The socialist experiment in Chile was NOT working)

You fail to mention the Us influences which were frantically working to stop the 'socialist experiment, as you call it, from working.

You fail to mention the US efforts to cut off international loans and aid to Chile.

An economic depression that began in 1967 peaked in 1970, exacerbated by capital flight, plummeting private investment, and withdrawal of bank deposits by those opposed to Allende's socialist program. Production fell and unemployment rose. Allende adopted measures including price freezes, wage increases, and tax reforms, which had the effect of increasing consumer spending and redistributing income downward. Joint public-private public works projects helped reduce unemployment. Much of the banking sector was nationalized. Many enterprises within the copper, coal, iron, nitrate, and steel industries were expropriated, nationalized, or subjected to state intervention. Industrial output increased sharply and unemployment fell during the Allende administration's first year.

Other reforms undertaken during the early Allende period included redistribution of millions of hectares of land to landless agricultural workers as part of the agrarian reform program, giving the armed forces an overdue pay increase, and providing free milk to children. The Indian Peoples Development Corporation and the Mapuche Vocational Institute were founded to address the needs of Chile's indigenous population.

The nationalization of U.S. and other foreign-owned companies led to increased tensions with the United States. The Nixon administration brought international financial pressure to bear in order to restrict economic credit to Chile. Simultaneously, the CIA funded opposition media, politicians, and organizations, helping to accelerate a campaign of domestic destabilization. By 1972, the economic progress of Allende's first year had been reversed and the economy was in crisis. Political polarization increased, and large mobilizations of both pro- and anti-government groups became frequent, often leading to clashes.
link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chile#History)

Funny, that the way that source tells it Chile was already screwed before Socialists came to power, Allende was fixing the problem but US efforts knocked it down again. How very interesting.

You also fail to mention that America is still training paramillitaries to kidnap, torture and kill trade unionists, leftists and anyone who challenges Capitalism in South America.link (http://www.soaw.org/new/)

...Dude!!!.
Why is everyone anti-communist? i walk into a shop and say "Hello, im a communist!" and people look at me as though im insane. (blinks.)
The fact remains that examples such as the USSR were not communist and china is just a Totalitarian-Economy First society.

Soooo...
WHY be anti-communist?
Your just Anti-USSR or Anti-China.
So... whats your opinions? (blinks)
Communism is GREAT in theory... First rule of The Parkus Empire: "If everybody is equal, everybody is poor and miserable."

Soooo...
WHY be anti-communist?
Your just Anti-USSR or Anti-China.
So... whats your opinions? (blinks)

Because they are one and the same. Communism, regardless of the merit of its ideas, is inherently flawed and will ultimately turn anywhere it is imposed on (with the exception of very small populations) in to a totalitarian hellhole riddled with corruption, environmental degradation, and a miserable quality of life for everyone but the untouchable party elite.

Oh okay. And everyone is communist, in their own way. Stalinists are communists, in their own way. You are a communist, in your own way. I'm a communist in MY way.

I mean hey, why bother having a word unless we generalize it's meaning to include every human being on earth?

But the point remains. Claiming to be intelligent doesn't make you intelligent. Claiming to be a communist makes you a communist. Look up the definition sometime.
Claiming to be a communist make you a communist to some people, a monster to some others, a genious to some others, everything is in the perpective. So for me, claiming to be a communist doesn't make you one.


Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Idealogy is not.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Idealogy is in the mind of the beholder, if you permit I use your term.


They share the idealogy, they espouse it, they are called Communists (the Communist Party) and so calling them communists is NOT far-fetched and outrageous as you seem to think.

You just don't like it because it associates your favored communists - Marx and people like you - with your 'bad' communists. You'd rather the distinction be definitely made even in language, to the point of only calling the good - aka "real" or "true" or "orthodox" - communists, communists.



...maybe I am naive. Maybe I'm naive when someone on this board claims to be a communist and I don't disagree. Maybe I'm naive when anyone claims to be a communist in a world where the Communist Utopian Ideal has obviously not been achieved. Maybe there ARE no communists! ;)

Let's take another exemple, a dictator who take the role of president of the republic, or something like that, there was legion of them. He claim to be the chief of a democratic institution, but is he really that? No.

I sure don't like those "bad" communists as you put it. They are only opportunist people who understood that in their country, capitalism was going to be kicked, and they wanted to be on the winning side, and even rule with an iron fist the same way the old capitalist rulers did. And even more frustrating, they gave enough ammo to the capitalist propaganda to describe us all like them.

Yeah, and maybe you and I don't even exist :eek: Anyways, this is way too philosophical for me :D

You know, if you walked intoa shop and said:

"Hi! I'm a mainstream hetro centrist!"

people would probably look at you as if you were insane.

Why?

Because people are there to buy bread, not to hear uninteresting and irrelevant personal facts about strangers. And most people who AREN'T insane understand that.
One day I'll have to try yelling "Hi I'm a Communist!" and "Hi I'm a Capitalist!"

Because they are one and the same. Communism, regardless of the merit of its ideas, is inherently flawed and will ultimately turn anywhere it is imposed on (with the exception of very small populations) in to a totalitarian hellhole riddled with corruption, environmental degradation, and a miserable quality of life for everyone but the untouchable party elite.
Wow, doesn't that sound like Russia :p

Wow, doesn't that sound like Russia :p

Russia, China, North Korea, Laos, Cambodia...pretty much all of them. I don't know about Mongolia, though. They might have been okay.

Russia, China, North Korea, Laos, Cambodia...pretty much all of them. I don't know about Mongolia, though. They might have been okay.
I watched this movie, Lilya Forever. After seeing it, I doubt I'd ever want to live in Russia. So miserable. I'd still visit though.

I watched this movie, Lilya Forever. After seeing it, I doubt I'd ever want to live in Russia. So miserable. I'd still visit though.

I've seen pictures of it; it's a beautiful place to visit but not to live in.

I've seen pictures of it; it's a beautiful place to visit but not to live in.
It reminds me of those horrid post-Apocalypse sci-fi movies in some regards. Some areas are gorgeous, yet others are like bad experiments gone wrong.

It reminds me of those horrid post-Apocalypse sci-fi movies in some regards. Some areas are gorgeous, yet others are like bad experiments gone wrong.

That has a lot to do with its history. Russia lacked a lot of the infrastructure between cities that existed in Britain and France during the Tsarist period, so there were few suburban settlements. After the Revolution, the Soviet planners had to alleviate the housing shortage but lacked the necessary inter-city infrastructure...so, they just built massive, utilitarian apartment blocks that literally appeared out of the wilderness.

That has a lot to do with its history. Russia lacked a lot of the infrastructure between cities that existed in Britain and France during the Tsarist period, so there were few suburban settlements. After the Revolution, the Soviet planners had to alleviate the housing shortage but lacked the necessary inter-city infrastructure...so, they just built massive, utilitarian apartment blocks that literally appeared out of the wilderness.
I know...sadly they remain to this day. Russia could have been gorgeous. Instead, parts of it are an abomination.

The problem with Marx's vision is the idea of the "dictatorship of the proletariat" being a transitory phase. To invest absolute power in the executive and then expect them to relinquish it later is just naive. Communist societies can never advance beyond the totalitarian phase into the truly egalitarian phase due to man's unquenchable thirst for power.
That said, I think it's a wonderful idea, if mankind could band together and work for a common purpose (haha, yeah right).

The problem with Marx's vision is the idea of the "dictatorship of the proletariat" being a transitory phase. To invest absolute power in the executive and then expect them to relinquish it later is just naive. Communist societies can never advance beyond the totalitarian phase into the truly egalitarian phase due to man's unquenchable thirst for power.
That said, I think it's a wonderful idea, if mankind could band together and work for a common purpose (haha, yeah right).
Once complete equality is achieved we'd regress into more primitive forms of society. Nothing stagnates. We always move in circles.

I know...sadly they remain to this day. Russia could have been gorgeous. Instead, parts of it are an abomination.

At least some of it is starting to recover now. However, I think Russia's environmental disasters are a condemnation of human greed and careless industrial overdevelopment rather than a condemnation of Communism or capitalism.

Russia, China, North Korea, Laos, Cambodia...pretty much all of them. I don't know about Mongolia, though. They might have been okay.

Mongolia basically got anal raped by the Soviet Union for most of its history.

At least some of it is starting to recover now. However, I think Russia's environmental disasters are a condemnation of human greed and careless industrial overdevelopment rather than a condemnation of Communism or capitalism.
Agreed. Communism created many other problems, but the environmental ones, as you said, are due to poor planning.

Mongolia basically got anal raped by the Soviet Union for most of its history.

And China, and pretty much everyone around them. Mongolia was pretty much in the worst possible place.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pissantia
The problem with Marx's vision is the idea of the "dictatorship of the proletariat" being a transitory phase. To invest absolute power in the executive and then expect them to relinquish it later is just naive. Communist societies can never advance beyond the totalitarian phase into the truly egalitarian phase due to man's unquenchable thirst for power.
That said, I think it's a wonderful idea, if mankind could band together and work for a common purpose (haha, yeah right).

Once complete equality is achieved we'd regress into more primitive forms of society. Nothing stagnates. We always move in circles..


From what I've learned (History degree) Marx did indeed intend the dictatorship of the proletariat to be a transitory phase. Its just that people in the modern day, when they think 'dictator' do think of Hitler or Stalin, and not in the sense Marx was trying to convey. He was thinking more of the dictators they had in the Roman Republic (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Dictator. This particular quote seems useful/informative: "The dictatorship was limited to six months, and no instances occur in which a person held this office for a longer time, save for the dictatorships of Lucius Cornelius Sulla and Gauis Julius Caesar. On the contrary, though a dictator was appointed for six months, he often resigned his office immediately after he had dispatched the business for which he had been appointed.").
True, I don't see how this sort of thing can be applied to a huge section of society, rather than just one person. You could argue that an extreme direct democracy is closest to a dictatorship of the proletariat, in that the general population have a very high degree of participation in government. However there are many checks and balances involved even in somewhere like Switzerland... [realises rambling].

You know, if you walked intoa shop and said:
"Hi! I'm a mainstream hetro centrist!"
people would probably look at you as if you were insane.
Why?
Because people are there to buy bread, not to hear uninteresting and irrelevant personal facts about strangers. And most people who AREN'T insane understand that.
:p
Laughing...I'm dying....
I gotta do that sometime.
Hopefully I'll get a smartass comment like this that makes it all the more funny.

I think possibly a better comparison would be ancient Athens. Yes there were restrictions on voting, but there were no real checks and balances and the Assembly held ultimate power. But yeah, it's a good point.

Communists should all be rounded up and shot. Afterwards there will be less scum on Earth.

:mad:

You shouldn't be so close-minded and ignorant. Do you actually understand the logic behind communism and its aims? We want utopia. Consider this: Jesus Christ is supposedly the son of God, we should all try to be like Jesus Chrsit, but will be ever be the son of God? Communism is utopia, we can try to have utopia, but will we? The point is, trying to bring about utopia is what's just, just like trying to act like Jesus, or, in atheist terms, the perfect human.

Because Communism is one of the saddest failed experiments in the history of mankind, resulting in the deaths of one hundred million plus people and forever altering the course of human history through warfare, oppression, and genocide.

Communism isn't utopia--there's no such thing as utopia, hence the name. It cannot and will not ever exist. The "logic" behind Communism is that there is no logic..unless you count mass murder as logical. You sacrifice millions to benefit no one but those in charge. Marx's ideas failed before he even began for he counted out human nature and the desire to succeed. In Communism, there is no incentive to strive harder and better yourself. As such, what's the point of living then?

You shouldn't be so close-minded and ignorant. Do you actually understand the logic behind communism and its aims? We want utopia. Consider this: Jesus Christ is supposedly the son of God, we should all try to be like Jesus Chrsit, but will be ever be the son of God? Communism is utopia, we can try to have utopia, but will we? The point is, trying to bring about utopia is what's just, just like trying to act like Jesus, or, in atheist terms, the perfect human.


Utopia is a fools dream. Life is an eternal stuggle in which a plethora of groups compete for power(the strong will win and the weak shall perish/serve). And the reason why life is like this is because that is the way that mother nature intended it to be, so to believe in your foolish ideals is to go against mother nature and only an ignorrent human being will go against mother nature.

Also true equality is impossible. Even if every human being was equal socially and materialisticly speaking there would still be inequality,people would still have something that other people would want(be it power,beauty,talent,love etc)

And Im surprised that being a communist you refer to jesus so much....you of all people should know that religon contains nothing but lies.

Religion isn't all lies. By the way, I'm not Christian, I consider myself a Buddhist. I used Jesus to personify human perfection. Your arguement says we shouldn't try at all, struggle is inevitable, we should allow it. I say we're better than that. I know communism will never happen, but we should still try, we should still think, because in these goals lies a better world of all of us.

Also true equality is impossible. Even if every human being was equal socially and materialisticly speaking there would still be inequality,people would still have something that other people would want(be it power,beauty,talent,love etc)


Read a wonderful little story called Harrison Bergeron by Kurt Vonegut (sp?). Oppressive gov'ts have "cures" for those, too.

Life is cruel. The predator does not know why it is a predator and the prey does not know why it is a prey,but that is just the way that mother nature intended it to be. And so the predator will consume its (innocent) prey...because it must,because that is life.

And so we must all embrace imperfection,struggle,inequality because that is nature. Afterall why fight for something you know will never come true?? We all have only one life and using that life to fight for a failed ideal is a waste of time.

If we can recognize that we are predators and we are hunting the innocent then we can change it. That's where we are different from animals. We can think about what we are doing.

People tend to dislike communism due to its lack of reward.
People like to know that if they train hard for 12 years and become a doctor they will be better off than if they scrap 12 years of school and become a newspaper stand salesman.

If we can recognize that we are predators and we are hunting the innocent then we can change it. That's where we are different from animals. We can think about what we are doing.


Look I cant argue my point of view all day. My views will never change as I am sure your views wont ether, you expressed your views without any personal insult or any profanity(and I respect you for that) but in the end I consider people like you to be my enemy and in turn I am your enemy.


Good Bye.

Soooo...
WHY be anti-communist?

Because I enjoy making ridiculous amounts of money and taking advantage of people.

Because Communism is one of the saddest failed experiments in the history of mankind, resulting in the deaths of one hundred million plus people and forever altering the course of human history through warfare, oppression, and genocide.Yes, because theocracies, democracies, dictatorships and plotocratic oligarchies neither kill nor have they ever altered the course of history through war, opression or genocide.;)

Communism isn't utopia--there's no such thing as utopia, hence the name. It cannot and will not ever exist. [QUOTE=Colerica] Utopia is a book. Communism is a political theory. You're right insaying that one is not the other.
[QUOTE=Colerica] The "logic" behind Communism is that there is no logic.. The reasoning behind communism is ethical; that inequality is wrong.
You sacrifice millions to benefit no one but those in charge. The idea behind communism is whatever is done is done for the benefit of the population, not the people in charge. It is non-communist governments, that make laws out of self-intrest, that do things for the beneifit of those in charge.
Marx's ideas failed before he even began for he counted out human nature and the desire to succeed.
Ideas can't realy fail in and of themselves... however, yes the application of Marx's ideas have failed thusfar. This is probably because they were intended to be implemented after capitalism has reached its peak. The sorely misguided attempts at communism thus far were initiated before said peak.
As such, what's the point of living then?Denying that life is an end in an of itself is nyalism. Life is not a means to something greater, but something to be enjoyed and appreciated. Communism is two men's ideas of how to ensure that the greatest portion of humans possible can live life to the fullest, rather than have a small group of people living a decadent lifestyle at the expense of the majority.

I await your reply, A

Because I enjoy making ridiculous amounts of money and taking advantage of people.
No personal offense intended but this is exactly the kind of thing that communsim is intended to prevent.

There's room for a bit more equality in this world. But communism is not achievable in it's full form. You are far more likely to find success in reducing inequality in a social democracy, balancing social justice with economic success...to continue funding the social justice...

(damn but I'm annoyingly middle of the road...)

And I think the point with Utopia is that it has a dual meaning...good place, and no place.

I want to gain the fruits of my labour. I don't want to share all the fruits of my labour with everyone else. Some will get less because they're unlucky, some because they're insompetent or unintelligent or lazy or whatever. Some will undeservedly get more. But I would rather accept that than enforced equality.

Largely because in a world of limited resources equality means dragging the better off down, not the worst off up.

Because I enjoy making ridiculous amounts of money and taking advantage of people.
Chicks dig capitalist oppressors :)

I'm not anti-communist specifically. I'm against utopianism in all its forms. There is no panacea for the world's ills. Never has been, never will be.

Which I guess explains why I tend towards somewhat regulated market economy for society.

....:eek:
I thought chicks dug social revolutionaries...
*rethinks whole political stance*

Chicks dig capitalist oppressors :)

"Peter : What would you do if you had a million dollars?
Lawrence: I'll tell you what I'd do, man, two chicks at the same time, man.

Peter: That's it? If you had a million dollars, you'd do two chicks at the same time?

Lawrence: Damn straight. I always wanted to do that, man. And I think if I had a million dollars I could hook that up, cause chicks dig a dude with money.

Peter: Well, not all chicks.

Lawrence: Well the kind of chicks that'd double up on a dude like me do.

Peter: Good point. "

...Dude!!!.
Why is everyone anti-communist? i walk into a shop and say "Hello, im a communist!" and people look at me as though im insane. (blinks.)
The fact remains that examples such as the USSR were not communist and china is just a Totalitarian-Economy First society.

Soooo...
WHY be anti-communist?
Your just Anti-USSR or Anti-China.
So... whats your opinions? (blinks)

Well, communism in theory would be nice (not perfect, but nice) but in practice, well: Russia, China,...

The problem with communism is that the state is so all-powerfull, and power corrupts.

Mind you, I'm not questioning your ideals, it is just impossible to realise.

Anarchism on the contrary....:D

Anarchy has a bad name for a reason...you end up with tinpot dictators.

Anarchy has a bad name for a reason...you end up with tinpot dictators.

Anarchy has a bad name because people are scared of it and because of it's methods: no political action, only direct action, in the 19th century anarchists became famous for attacking capitalists and nobles and being in the front row of every revolt. Therefore, anarchy became equal to aggression and chaos, wich are the things it rejects.

Keep this anarchy up, girls everywhere are going wild.

I think socialism is good in many of it's forms.
I think people seem to think there are no flaws with capitalism.
Like how fat cats sit on soon-to-be-wasted money.
Then if I say "well that's why the economy should be publicly owned" they scowl and say "But that's COMMUNISM!!"

Also people fail to see that when everyone earnes the same amount of money/has an equal quality of life, that economic value is no longer an issue when getting a job. So people won't stop being doctors, on the contrary, you'll get better ones.

^Its all the little things like that which are part of socialism that makes me support it so much.

And for those who say "look at the Soviet Union, that was socialism"
...look at Nazi Germany, that was capitalism... no shit!

I think racists and other prejudices loons tend to be anti communist, because it means they must commune with people who are different, and create a joint effort to make society better.

My Great grandfather was a socialist in Russia and my basement is full of unneeded capitalistic plastic junk.

Yes, because theocracies, democracies, dictatorships and plotocratic oligarchies neither kill nor have they ever altered the course of history through war, opression or genocide.;)

Did I say that much? No, I did not, my friend. Democracies, dictatorships, theocracies, and oligarchies are outside of this--stop shifting focus. Just because the Arizona Cardinals are a bad NFL team, does not give a Cardinal fan the right to say, "yeah, well so are the 49ers." We're not talking about those other systems; the focus is on Communism.

Utopia is a book. Communism is a political theory. You're right insaying that one is not the other.

The concept of utopia. As such, Communism's "pursuit of utopia" is a fallacy. It cannot happen. There is no paradise.


The reasoning behind communism is ethical; that inequality is wrong.

Inequality is a fact of life. Get used to it.


The idea behind communism is whatever is done is done for the benefit of the population, not the people in charge. It is non-communist governments, that make laws out of self-intrest, that do things for the beneifit of those in charge.

I didn't ask for what the ideas behind Communism are--I know what they are. The execution of those ideas ends up destroying cultures and killing millions. I don't find that a fair trade off. Capitalism is not the best, it's just better than the alternatives.


Ideas can't realy fail in and of themselves...

Of course they can. Look at edible underpants and Vanilla Ice; failed ideas in and of themselves.

however, yes the application of Marx's ideas have failed thusfar.

Thus far? They will always fail. They have always failed. They cannot work.

This is probably because they were intended to be implemented after capitalism has reached its peak.

They've failed because Marx ignored basic human needs and desires. He overlooked nationalism, as well, and how big of a role that plays.

The sorely misguided attempts at communism thus far were initiated before said peak.

Perhaps because there isn't a said "peak" to capitalism.


Denying that life is an end in an of itself is nyalism.

I believe you mean nihilism, the belief that life is without purpose or of a purpose humans cannot understand.

Life is not a means to something greater, but something to be enjoyed and appreciated.

Life is like a box of chocolates; you never know which one you're gonna get and when you do get it, you realize it's yucky coconut and spit it out. ;) In all seriousness, life is something to be enjoyed. But one does not enjoy life without advancement. All humans are driven by the desire to succeed. Without it, we are nothing. Marx neglected this in his theory. I will give you this....Communism should've never been instated in Russia as that was the worst country possible for the ideas to be implented.

Communism is two men's ideas of how to ensure that the greatest portion of humans possible can live life to the fullest, rather than have a small group of people living a decadent lifestyle at the expense of the majority.

So we should do what about it now? Subjegate those in charge for the sake of those too lazy to advance on their own merit? Those who would rather leech off the 'system' than establish themselves? Those who would rather use the scapegoat of "THE MAN"™ as the reason they live in their parent's basement? (in jest, mostly). Blaming others does nothing. Instead of attacking those who have succeeded, why not succeed yourself?


I await your reply, A

And I to yours. :D

My Great grandfather was a socialist in Russia and my basement is full of unneeded capitalistic plastic junk.

Greatest. Quote. Ever.

Greatest. Quote. Ever.

no, the greatest quote is when someone has died and someone says "Say something..." "Like what?" "Something from the bible..." "Okay. BRING OUT YOUR GUESTS! WE WISH TO RAPE THEM!"

Did I say that much? No, I did not, my friend. Democracies, dictatorships, theocracies, and oligarchies are outside of this--stop shifting focus. Just because the Arizona Cardinals are a bad NFL team, does not give a Cardinal fan the right to say, "yeah, well so are the 49ers." We're not talking about those other systems; the focus is on Communism.

First of all, the 49ers are not a bad team, they are a developing team. They're gonna pick up reggie bush in the draft and the-- WATCH OUT! anyway

I wasn't trying to shift focus, I was mearly trying to point out that governments kill people (people kill people) so trying to say that communism is a particularly bad form of government because it kills people is fallacious.


The concept of utopia. As such, Communism's "pursuit of utopia" is a fallacy. It cannot happen. There is no paradise. Lets jsut throw away the 'place that does not exist' utopia and jsut concenrate on 'realy good place to live' utopia'. Who says it can't happen? I think there are some countries that have come quite close. As such I don't advocate a communist revlution so much as either a democratically elected communist government or just a more socialist government than currently exists in most countries.


Inequality is a fact of life. Get used to it. I accept that as the world is now, inequality exists. However, I reject the notion that the level of gross economic equality that exists today is necessary. I reject that it has to be that way. Furthermore I would beleive that the only reason people today feel that inequality is unchangable fact of life is because they have been well indocrinated by the corporate elite who basically control the value system of most people today through the mass media.



I didn't ask for what the ideas behind Communism are--I know what they are. The execution of those ideas ends up destroying cultures and killing millions. I don't find that a fair trade off. Capitalism is not the best, it's just better than the alternatives. Which is why I advocate democratically elected, moralistic communism than the kind cambodia tried to institute. Any government, when it has not been explicitly chosen by the people, through an election should not be in power; be it communist or whatever else you can think of. However, when the party that is in power can basically control the voting tendancies of the population, or when all the political parties are ideologically homogeneous, that system needs to be changed.

Of course they can. Look at edible underpants and Vanilla Ice; failed ideas in and of themselves. Bad ideas that failed as products. Not failed ideas


Thus far? They will always fail. They have always failed. They cannot work. Lets not get started on the logical contradiction of induction. Saying communism will never work in the future is no more legitimate than saying it will always work in the future. We humans need time and faliure to learn how to do things right.


They've failed because Marx ignored basic human needs and desires. I would disagree but clearly thats an irreconsilable difference


He overlooked nationalism, as well, and how big of a role that plays. How so? If anything I think communism appeals to nationalism more than capitalism, because it requires people to work hard for their country and not for their own personal benefit


Perhaps because there isn't a said "peak" to capitalism. Clearly you are ignorant towards rising poverty and debt levels in the US, or the huge bubble that the US dollar is sitting on. I use the US because to me it represents a highly refined capitalist system that we both have a fairly intimate and personal knowlege of. There will be a peak, and soon. I think after the US collapes, and drags most of the world down with it, people will realize that communism is a much more stable form of government than capitalism.
I believe you mean nihilism, the belief that life is without purpose or of a purpose humans cannot understand. exactly. although saying our purpose in life is to make money, and without the ability to make money, life has no purpose isn't nyalism, its gettin there.


In all seriousness, life is something to be enjoyed. But one does not enjoy life without advancement. I entirly disagree. I think that that mindset is very volitile and very dangerous.

All humans are driven by the desire to succeed. Without it, we are nothing. Marx neglected this in his theory. I will give you this....Communism should've never been instated in Russia as that was the worst country possible for the ideas to be implented.
Mabye capitalism just measures its sucsess by the wrong standards. Or mabye I'm wrong. Mabye we're both wrong. Who knows? I'll tell you one thing though, we have a difference of, not just opinion, but a fundamentaly different perception of human nature, so, whats a body to do?

So we should do what about it now? Subjegate those in charge for the sake of those too lazy to advance on their own merit? Those who would rather leech off the 'system' than establish themselves? Those who would rather use the scapegoat of "THE MAN"™ as the reason they live in their parent's basement? (in jest, mostly). Blaming others does nothing. Instead of attacking those who have succeeded, why not succeed yourself?
I realy disapprove of your portrayal of the poor as just plain lazy...

The thing is, capitalsim is better discribed as inudstrial feudalism. There have to be people on the bottom being exploited so the super rich can be, well, super rich. This is fundamentally wrong.

First of all, the 49ers are not a bad team, they are a developing team. They're gonna pick up reggie bush in the draft and the-- WATCH OUT! anyway

Psh, not if Houston takes him first (I fear for Reggie Bush's future prospects with either team).


I wasn't trying to shift focus, I was mearly trying to point out that governments kill people (people kill people) so trying to say that communism is a particularly bad form of government because it kills people is fallacious.

Yet it isn't a fallacy to state that it happened and that those deaths were directly because of the communist states. Stalin starving twenty million Russians was part of his plans for "communizing" the nation. It didn't work. Their five year plan took ten years to implement for God's sake and at a great loss of life. We won't even get into China or Cambodia and the millions upon millions of lives taken their by the State for the advancement of their communist cause.


Lets jsut throw away the 'place that does not exist' utopia and jsut concenrate on 'realy good place to live' utopia'. Who says it can't happen? I think there are some countries that have come quite close. As such I don't advocate a communist revlution so much as either a democratically elected communist government or just a more socialist government than currently exists in most countries.

Communism and socialism do no good for anyone. I advocate the removal of nearly all government powers, save for those just needed to maintain order and protect the fundamental rights to property, life, and pursuit of happiness. More government does no one any good.


I accept that as the world is now, inequality exists. However, I reject the notion that the level of gross economic equality that exists today is necessary. I reject that it has to be that way. Furthermore I would beleive that the only reason people today feel that inequality is unchangable fact of life is because they have been well indocrinated by the corporate elite who basically control the value system of most people today through the mass media.

There's the scapegoat: the corporate elite. Everything has to have a scape goat in the communist mindset. Society can't be held accountable for its own problems, there has to be someone to blame. I accept that humanity as a whole will forever be inequal. You cannot disrupt this balance.


Which is why I advocate democratically elected, moralistic communism than the kind cambodia tried to institute. Any government, when it has not been explicitly chosen by the people, through an election should not be in power; be it communist or whatever else you can think of. However, when the party that is in power can basically control the voting tendancies of the population, or when all the political parties are ideologically homogeneous, that system needs to be changed.

The government gets its consent to govern from the people. There is no such thing, though, as a moralistic communist state. It has not happened (depending on the view of "moralistic," I suppose). Power corrupts absolutely everyone and you cannot escape that. When you give the gov't total control, you ruin the nation and usher in tyranny. On a different note: if a communist party were elected to power in America, I would leave this nation and note the fall of the country from afar...Israel looks like a neat place to live. :)


Bad ideas that failed as products. Not failed ideas

Oh, c'mon, Vanilla Ice was a failed idea from the onset. ;)


Lets not get started on the logical contradiction of induction. Saying communism will never work in the future is no more legitimate than saying it will always work in the future. We humans need time and faliure to learn how to do things right.

Alright, I'll give you that one. However, the theories of communism cannot be accurately applied to human society. Can I say that without jumping off a logic cliff? It has always failed in the past and, judging by these failures and the theories behind it, I can say with great confidence that it shall never work.


I would disagree but clearly thats an irreconsilable difference

So be it, I guess. :)


How so? If anything I think communism appeals to nationalism more than capitalism, because it requires people to work hard for their country and not for their own personal benefit

In nations like the former Soviet Union, communism failed to unite the various peoples to a common goal. Nationalist groups find more unity amongst themselves than a monolithic governing body or belief, ie a communist state.


Clearly you are ignorant towards rising poverty and debt levels in the US, or the huge bubble that the US dollar is sitting on.

No, I'm not ignorant towards national poverty or our national debt. The US dollar has long been sitting on a very poppable bubble; find me a national currency that doesn't.

I use the US because to me it represents a highly refined capitalist system

As it is a highly refined capitalist system. To me, we're moving to incorporate too many aspects of socialism for my personal taste, but that's really niether here nor there.

There will be a peak, and soon. I think after the US collapes, and drags most of the world down with it, people will realize that communism is a much more stable form of government than capitalism.

The US will collapse in time, yes. Nothing lasts forever. I doubt I will live to see it. I doubt my children or their children will live to see it, but it will happen. And when that does happen, I can only hope that the people of this nation have enough sense to reinstate a capitalist free-market system....lest they fall to the oppressive hands of a communist state that could arise.


exactly. although saying our purpose in life is to make money, and without the ability to make money, life has no purpose isn't nyalism, its gettin there.


I didn't say our purpose is to make money, per se, but that's close enough. Who doesn't want to better themselves financially, honestly? If I present a random stranger with a hundred dollar bill, is he going to take it without much question? Of course he is. Apply that to humanity at large and you have what I see. People will do, as a general rule, anything they can to further themselves. Communism ignores that and outright tries to suppress that through force and violence. That's not a nice thing to do, needless to say. :p


I entirly disagree. I think that that mindset is very volitile and very dangerous.

Your right to disagree entirely. I think the opposite mindset is very idealistic, but ultimately naive and futile. :)


Mabye capitalism just measures its sucsess by the wrong standards. Or mabye I'm wrong. Mabye we're both wrong. Who knows? I'll tell you one thing though, we have a difference of, not just opinion, but a fundamentaly different perception of human nature, so, whats a body to do?

Meh. You've got a point there. *munches popcorn* You want some? ;)


I realy disapprove of your portrayal of the poor as just plain lazy...

They're not just lazy as there are plenty of factors that can render a person in poverty. However...they're plenty of people who ARE indeed too lazy to pull themselves out of it and would rather suck the government bottle dry than get up and learn to help themselves.


The thing is, capitalsim is better discribed as inudstrial feudalism. There have to be people on the bottom being exploited so the super rich can be, well, super rich. This is fundamentally wrong.

And yet there's a part you seem to miss: the people at the bottom have every means available to them to rise to the top. That isn't fundamentally wrong; that's nature. Forcing everyone into a 'classless' society that has artificially removed the hiearchy (or has claimed to, let's say that) is fundamentally wrong.

The duties of any government:

1) Protect it's people from external threats.
2) Enforce the law of the land.
3) Be accountable to the people it rules.
4) (This is my view) Remove, wherever possible, entrenched privilege that prevents people rising by their own merit.
5) Provide a basic safety net for it's people. Doesn't have to be comfortable, just liveable.

Psh, not if Houston takes him first (I fear for Reggie Bush's future prospects with either team). I'm pretty sure Vince Young's stellar Rose Bowl performance gaurentees him the first round draft pick. And then reggie in SF will be like barry sanders in Detroit. I look forward.

Yet it isn't a fallacy to state that it happened and that those deaths were directly because of the communist states. Stalin starving twenty million Russians was part of his plans for "communizing" the nation. It didn't work. Their five year plan took ten years to implement for God's sake and at a great loss of life. We won't even get into China or Cambodia and the millions upon millions of lives taken their by the State for the advancement of their communist cause. I'm not denying that those deaths were unneccessry, I'm not denying that they were a terrible tragedy, and I'm not denying that they were a direct result of political parties who were trying to be communist. I was merely pointing out that governments of all types have directly caused the deaths of many people, so saying that communism is particularly bad because it causes death is fallacious.

Communism and socialism do no good for anyone. I advocate the removal of nearly all government powers, save for those just needed to maintain order and protect the fundamental rights to property, life, and pursuit of happiness. More government does no one any good. I think it would be better to have a moderate amount of good for everyone, rather than install a system which allows a few exceptionally talented individuals to have an excessive amount of good whilst ensuring that the majority have a very small amount of good. Aren't things like education, health care and an amount of material wealth comparable to your peers fundamental rights also?

There's the scapegoat: the corporate elite. Everything has to have a scape goat in the communist mindset. Society can't be held accountable for its own problems, there has to be someone to blame. I accept that humanity as a whole will forever be inequal. You cannot disrupt this balance. You mean this imbalance? I don't blame the people on top for being on top, or even for manipulating the system towards their own intrests once they are on top. I don't blame them for the current state of society. Nor do I blame society itself. I don't blame anyone. However, it is important to realize that we now have a problem and correct it. Yes this would involve dismantaling the wealthy few, but I don't blame them for the present state of affairs.

There is no such thing, though, as a moralistic communist state.
Why not? Just because there has not be doesn't mean there cannot be. We humans need multiple attempts to get a thing right.
Power corrupts absolutely everyone and you cannot escape that. When you give the gov't total control, you ruin the nation and usher in tyranny.Well someone has to have power in a society. And if you realy beleive in Acton then you'll acknowlede that, since someone has to have power, someone is bound to be corrupt. If you have to be pessimistic than I guess you can become a CEO and milk others with your corporation instead of governmental milking. So I guess capitalism is the system of pessimists?

Alright, I'll give you that one. However, the theories of communism cannot be accurately applied to human society. Can I say that without jumping off a logic cliff? It has always failed in the past and, judging by these failures and the theories behind it, I can say with great confidence that it shall never work. To each his own ;)

In nations like the former Soviet Union, communism failed to unite the various peoples to a common goal. I disagree. The Soviet Union failed because its common goal was building weapons and not improving the standard of living for the populance. Any country which devots so much of its funding to build nukes that it can't feed its populance wont be able to, well, feed its populance. If any country did what the USSR did, its people would starve, regardless of where it stands on the political grid. However, I do acknowlege that in a state where the government controls everything it would be considerably easier to spend all the $ on bombs than in a country where people are allowed to react to incentives (like starvation) unilaterally

Nationalist groups find more unity amongst themselves than a monolithic governing body or belief, ie a communist state. So if you take that nationalist energy and funnel it towards production under a communist system... voila!

No, I'm not ignorant towards national poverty or our national debt. The US dollar has long been sitting on a very poppable bubble; find me a national currency that doesn't. China

As it is a highly refined capitalist system. To me, we're moving to incorporate too many aspects of socialism for my personal taste, but that's really niether here nor there. The US is? wow. You're realy, realy capitalist. Like realy.

The US will collapse in time, yes. Nothing lasts forever. I doubt I will live to see it. I doubt my children or their children will live to see it, but it will happen. And when that does happen, I can only hope that the people of this nation have enough sense to reinstate a capitalist free-market system....lest they fall to the oppressive hands of a communist state that could arise. I think its going to collapse right when the people who are teenagers now are in their adult-hood. I'd actually like to see a resurgence of the city-state if the conditions were right.....

I didn't say our purpose is to make money, per se, but that's close enough. Sure you did, you said take away my ability to enrich myself through hard work and I hgave no reason to live.:p (or soemthing)
Who doesn't want to better themselves financially, honestly? If I present a random stranger with a hundred dollar bill, is he going to take it without much question? Of course he is. Apply that to humanity at large and you have what I see. People will do, as a general rule, anything they can to further themselves. Communism ignores that and outright tries to suppress that through force and violence. That's not a nice thing to do, needless to say. Whereas capitalism just ignores the basic needs of the majority. To solve its major flaw, communism needs to find a way to sucsessfully appeal towards people's humanity. It may be near impossible, but capitalisms flaw is inherint to the system itself, and so is irresolvable.

They're not just lazy as there are plenty of factors that can render a person in poverty. However...they're plenty of people who ARE indeed too lazy to pull themselves out of it and would rather suck the government bottle dry than get up and learn to help themselves.
And those are the people that need to be killed off, or closly monitered. I think a wasted human life is worse than no human life.:mp5:

And yet there's a part you seem to miss: the people at the bottom have every means available to them to rise to the top. That isn't fundamentally wrong; that's nature. Forcing everyone into a 'classless' society that has artificially removed the hiearchy (or has claimed to, let's say that) is fundamentally wrong. Yes, an individual at the bottom can rise to the top, but the majority of people cannot, and if they could, you would call it communism. This is the problem I see with capitalism.

Sorry, point of that is...if a government doesn't do that, as communism in my view does not, it is not a good government.

It removes privilege, but then doesnt let people rise (at least in the ideal system). People should be allowed to succeed. Communism doesn't allow them that.

It removes privilege, but then doesnt let people rise (at least in the ideal system). People should be allowed to succeed. Communism doesn't allow them that.Sure it does, it jsut allows whole societies to succeed instead of individuals.:)

Sorry, point of that is...if a government doesn't do that, as communism in my view does not, it is not a good government.

It removes privilege, but then doesnt let people rise (at least in the ideal system). People should be allowed to succeed. Communism doesn't allow them that.
It does let people rise and it just offers different rewards than money.

I'm pretty sure Vince Young's stellar Rose Bowl performance gaurentees him the first round draft pick. And then reggie in SF will be like barry sanders in Detroit. I look forward.

Blah. Vince Young's got nothing, in my opinion. Besides, Houston has David Carr (woo-hoo ;)) they won't need to take a QB.


I'm not denying that those deaths were unneccessry, I'm not denying that they were a terrible tragedy, and I'm not denying that they were a direct result of political parties who were trying to be communist. I was merely pointing out that governments of all types have directly caused the deaths of many people, so saying that communism is particularly bad because it causes death is fallacious.

No, it's not, because those deaths were caused by communism. Without the communist state in place, those deaths would not have occured.


I think it would be better to have a moderate amount of good for everyone, rather than install a system which allows a few exceptionally talented individuals to have an excessive amount of good whilst ensuring that the majority have a very small amount of good. Aren't things like education, health care and an amount of material wealth comparable to your peers fundamental rights also?

It's not a right to have comparable wealth as your peers. It's a right to earn that, though. So you'd want to eliminate or oppress those with talent for the sake of those without? That makes me sad in the panda.


You mean this imbalance? I don't blame the people on top for being on top, or even for manipulating the system towards their own intrests once they are on top. I don't blame them for the current state of society. Nor do I blame society itself. I don't blame anyone. However, it is important to realize that we now have a problem and correct it. Yes this would involve dismantaling the wealthy few, but I don't blame them for the present state of affairs.

"Dismantaling the wealthy few...." That makes me even more sad. So you openly advocate the stripping away of personal property for the sake of making others feel good?


Why not? Just because there has not be doesn't mean there cannot be. We humans need multiple attempts to get a thing right.
Well someone has to have power in a society. And if you realy beleive in Acton then you'll acknowlede that, since someone has to have power, someone is bound to be corrupt. If you have to be pessimistic than I guess you can become a CEO and milk others with your corporation instead of governmental milking. So I guess capitalism is the system of pessimists?

Well, naturally, someone has to be in power. I'm not advocating a society without a government of some form as that leads to chaos and disorder. I'm saying that I'd rather contend with a little corruption under a capitalist, free system than be subjegated to complete oppression under a tyrannical communist state.

I disagree. The Soviet Union failed because its common goal was building weapons and not improving the standard of living for the populance. Any country which devots so much of its funding to build nukes that it can't feed its populance wont be able to, well, feed its populance. If any country did what the USSR did, its people would starve, regardless of where it stands on the political grid. However, I do acknowlege that in a state where the government controls everything it would be considerably easier to spend all the $ on bombs than in a country where people are allowed to react to incentives (like starvation) unilaterally


So if you take that nationalist energy and funnel it towards production under a communist system... voila!

You're speaking in if's again, my friend. ;) It's not that simple. You can't just mend the differences between so many nationalist groups--many of whom hate each other--for the sake of furthering the communist system. Doesn't work that, bud.


China

Bleh. China has a growing economy and they're wisely abandoing the archaic Maoism, but their currency, too, sits on a bubble that is quite poppable, I assure you.


The US is? wow. You're realy, realy capitalist. Like realy.

Yes, the US is leaning too socialist for my personal tastes. And, yes, I'm really capitalist. I believe in freedom and I support the eradication of the federal government as we know it today. I want a return to the United States of America, not the United Monolithic Omni-Present Federal Government of America. ;)


I think its going to collapse right when the people who are teenagers now are in their adult-hood. I'd actually like to see a resurgence of the city-state if the conditions were right.....

Well, for the sake of stability, I sure hope you're wrong. :)


Sure you did, you said take away my ability to enrich myself through hard work and I hgave no reason to live.:p (or soemthing)

Well, that certainly would make life a very dull existance. As much as I hate work, I'd rather work to advance myself than work to advance no one.


Whereas capitalism just ignores the basic needs of the majority. To solve its major flaw, communism needs to find a way to sucsessfully appeal towards people's humanity. It may be near impossible, but capitalisms flaw is inherint to the system itself, and so is irresolvable.

And it can't find that appeal to people's humanity because it denies people their humanity. Communism seeks to make people into one group, not individuals. Individuals, to communism, are enemies of the state for they do not fit into the machine.


And those are the people that need to be killed off, or closly monitered. I think a wasted human life is worse than no human life.:mp5:

Please tell me you're joking about killing people off. Dear God, tell me you're joking. :)


Yes, an individual at the bottom can rise to the top, but the majority of people cannot, and if they could, you would call it communism. This is the problem I see with capitalism.

Everyone can rise to the top. Given the right attitude, there is nothing you can't do in a free society, regardless of your social status. The world is at your fingertips in a free market nation. And no, I would not call the little guy getting ahead communism. I would call that the epitome of capitalism: rising from nothing to be the Kings of the Kilburn High Road...err..umm...too much Flogging Molly....hmm....where was I? Oh yeah....I would call that the epitome of capitalism: rising from nothing to be at the very top. Bill Gates did it; any one can.

It does let people rise and it just offers different rewards than money.

Yeah, like a shallow grave after a trip to the firing squad. ;)

Yeah, like a shallow grave after a trip to the firing squad. ;)

You always seem to forget about about it, but communism doesn't necesserily call for execution, even if those who called themselves communist did a lot of them.

You always seem to forget about about it, but communism doesn't necesserily call for execution, even if those who called themselves communist did a lot of them.

Dictatorship of the proletariat?

That was necessary considering the circumstances of Russia, now, we can have democratic socialism which will hopefully, in the long run, lead to democratic communism.

That was necessary considering the circumstances of Russia, now, we can have democratic socialism which will hopefully, in the long run, lead to democratic communism.
Yes, I agree, but he was talking about communism in general, and his ignorance angered me...

Yes, I agree, but he was talking about communism in general, and his ignorance angered me...

Ohhh, the little commie got his red panties all twisted.

Dictatorship of the proletariat?

Jeez, this phrase ha been so misinterpreted by everyone from Lenin onwards...

Marx meant it to signify a temporary phase, like the dictators the Romans used to appoint in special emergencies, back in the days of the Republic. Surprisingly it worked most of the time: see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Dictator , especially 'Powers and Abilities' section. Basically to summarise, they gave one person emergency powers for six months, which that person almost always gave up: except Julius Caesar, by whose time the Republic was dead on its feet anyway.

My point is: Marx intended the dictatorship of the proletariat to be a temporary phase on the road to true communism. Not something I support myself: being firmly committed to democracy, I feel any sole group holding power is by definition a bad thing.
All I really want is a good welfare state; health service, some nationalised industries, good public services generally uninfluenced by private sector: something (without intending abuse) many Americans seem to consider the same as Communism.
Or rather, 'Aaagh! Damn Commies! Trying to steal everyone's hard-earned cash! Take that! [Swings baseball bat] THWACK!'

Why be anti-Communist? Because Communism and its little brother Socialism are a blight upon mankind, spreading misery wherever they touch. Yeah, I'm talking about Europe too. For all their "higher standards of living" a whopping 15% of French and 12% of Germans say they are optimistic about the future. America (the Evil Capitalist Empire) was somewhere in the 60% range.

Um its probably other countries (Iran, Israel, Iraq, America) that make europeans nervous about the future.

You always seem to forget about about it, but communism doesn't necesserily call for execution, even if those who called themselves communist did a lot of them.

In reality, communist parties are often among the most determined opponents of the death penalty. Here, in France, the communist party played a prime role in the abolition of death penalty in 1981 (the social-democrat took power in 1981, but only a minority of them had the courage to abolish the death penalty, it took a lot of efforts from the PCF to have them really do it).

And remember that the first abolition of the death penalty in Europe in modern history was during Paris' Commune of 1871...

I watched this movie, Lilya Forever. After seeing it, I doubt I'd ever want to live in Russia. So miserable. I'd still visit though.
I'm a Russian livimg in Russia, and I wouldn't say it's miserable here.

Ok I have a few questions for you...first off
Do you even know how a communist goverment works?
now that thats off my back...When you look at communism what leader do you think of, I ask this because if your thinking of Russia and stalin, Vietnam and Ho Chi Ming (I hope thats his name) or Noth Korea and (That little crazy SOB) then you have an entirely wronge idea of communism. Originally it worked, only because the leader wasn`t a manicle paranoid idiot. So when you can show the flaws of the original communist instead of look down on people who are communist then try to figure out what communism is first. Crap I read alot of stuff on this thread that has nothing to do with communism.

...Dude!!!.
Why is everyone anti-communist? i walk into a shop and say "Hello, im a communist!" and people look at me as though im insane. (blinks.)
The fact remains that examples such as the USSR were not communist and china is just a Totalitarian-Economy First society.

Soooo...
WHY be anti-communist?
Your just Anti-USSR or Anti-China.
So... whats your opinions? (blinks)
All people know about communism is of the two pseudo-communist states Russia and China.
While Russia still has a tiny glimpse of communism here and there, the totalitarian dictatorship in China is about as communist as the US :rolleyes:
But the very most people have no clue about this and thus think that if you say you're pro-communist, you like what the dictatorship in China does.

Ohhh, the little commie got his red panties all twisted.

Pathetic, just pathetic, only 8 years old spoiled little children insult people to argue their point. Even some people here I don't agree with try to prove their point with civilized manners, and you should just do like them

I'm anti-Communism (against communism), but not anti-Communist. I have some good friends who are communists (yes, it's true, don't gape ;)).

(cries)
IM SOOOOOOOOOOOOOO happy!!! 3 of my threads are still alive from ages ago (Blows nose) KEEP THEM ALIVE DAMMIT!!!!!!
Stalin
Cold War
Ect

I think socialism is good in many of it's forms.
I think people seem to think there are no flaws with capitalism.
Like how fat cats sit on soon-to-be-wasted money.
Then if I say "well that's why the economy should be publicly owned" they scowl and say "But that's COMMUNISM!!"

Also people fail to see that when everyone earnes the same amount of money/has an equal quality of life, that economic value is no longer an issue when getting a job. So people won't stop being doctors, on the contrary, you'll get better ones.

^Its all the little things like that which are part of socialism that makes me support it so much.

And for those who say "look at the Soviet Union, that was socialism"
...look at Nazi Germany, that was capitalism... no shit!

I think racists and other prejudices loons tend to be anti communist, because it means they must commune with people who are different, and create a joint effort to make society better.

But why would one want to be a doctor when one can pick an easier job for the same pay? Think about all the money spent to go through eight years of collage. How much education does it take to be a day laborer? So why would I throw away all of that money to become a doctor if a common laborer was going to be paid the same? But everyone wants to be a doctor growing up, right? Same with policemen, firefighters, solders, and even bounty hunters. And I can tell you its much easier to become a Marine then it is to become a doctor. You can't expect a doctor to work for a laborer's wages, they've earned better then that.

You denounce anybody with a dollar more then you as a fat-cat wasting their money, like its the root of all evil. So if the root of evil is money, what's the root of money? It is a tool of exchange which cannot be exchanged unless there are goods produced and people to produce them. Money is made possible only by people who produce. Money is only a tool. It will take you where you wish, but it won't replace you as the driver. It will give you the means to satisfy your desires, but not your desires. Money is evil to those who attempt to reverse this cause and effect. Money really can't buy happiness if you have no concept of what you want. It won't buy intelligence for the fool or honor for the coward. You can only have so much money as your intellect will allow you.

As for those that inherit their fortunes; only the one who does not need it is fit to inherit a fortune. The one who would make his own no matter how much or little he started with. If an heir is equal to his/her fortune; it will serve them. If not, it destroys them. The corrupt were not corrupted by money, they corrupted the money. And distributing it through taxes will not bring back the virtue that was in that money. Don't believe me? Think about what happens to all of those lottery winners.

That person who tried to define communism is incorrect.

Pathetic, just pathetic, only 8 years old spoiled little children insult people to argue their point. Even some people here I don't agree with try to prove their point with civilized manners, and you should just do like them

Ohh, cry me a river. Waah, waah, waah. Learn to take a joke. Life's easier laughing.

More to the point, communism only works in new communities. The Israeli kibbutzim are an excellent example - they are quite communist.

The only way to make the world communist involves destroying the old world, perhaps through a global nuclear conflict.

I'll take fat cats and bribery any day over nuclear war.

No, the only way to make communism work is in small communities, often on the edge of poverty as it is.

Most poor, small communities are naturally communist, or close to it; holding important goods in common, with very few personal possessions, and no money. Some of these communities are very egalitarian.

As a community gets richer; and as it gets bigger; people begin to be able to succeed individually without jeopardising the success of the group, and so they do. It's a natural process. And I'm not sure you can stop that.

Ohh, cry me a river. Waah, waah, waah. Learn to take a joke. Life's easier laughing.

And you, learn to make good joke, the one about firing squad was far better than your last one... if you call that a joke...

communism doesnt work anyway...if everyone is equak and gets paid the same, a ditch digger is paid the same as a doctor? theres no drive to become something better then and no point to get an education because your going to get paid the same if you do or not

All people know about communism is of the two pseudo-communist states Russia and China. While Russia still has a tiny glimpse of communism here and there, the totalitarian dictatorship in China is about as communist as the US :rolleyes:
.

Yes, but the problem is that Russia, China, North Korea, and the others are what all Communist states have turned in to, and they have all been riddled with corruption, oppression, and less equality than that of capitalist nations.

True Communism would only work on a small scale, and that would either require a massacre of billions of people or a total dissolution of international contact, and given the trend towards internationalism this will never happen.

Rawr!
I think Anti-Communism stems from everyone saying "OoOOh Communism Baaad" so... No :D
If we all took a look at it wed say "nipples!" and immidiately back the idea.
well... maybe not the nipples.

communism doesnt work anyway...if everyone is equak and gets paid the same, a ditch digger is paid the same as a doctor? theres no drive to become something better then and no point to get an education because your going to get paid the same if you do or not

The government simply identify those who are more intelligent than others and have an interest for biology, and make them take the path to become a doctor. You're trying to imply that all humans are lazy, and that's completly false.

The government simply identify those who are more intelligent than others and have an interest for biology, and make them take the path to become a doctor. You're trying to imply that all humans are lazy, and that's completly false.

Exactly :)
And thats assuming the person with an intrest in biology wouldnt step forward! :D

The kibbutzim remain communist despite being prosperous. And they are communist only in practice, and only internally. Kibbutzim make a lot of money.

Nor are they all farms. Some of the newer kibbutzim are involved in the electronics industry.

I think we need to understand that Marx didn't exactly describe how communism itself would work and evolve. He told us the things we must strive for, it's up to us to get there. My proposal is that workers' councils decide adequate working hours for ever profession. All jobs would be equally rewarded but people providing "skilled" labor would have to work less hours. It's rewarding everyone for labor and keeping skilled laborers from taking advantage of the average worker by financial means. Every worker's quota must be met, or else their work isn't considered labor, and they depend on society's charity, and not be rewarded by the government. Of course there would be checks and balances so you wouldn't get fired for an honest accident.

More to the point, communism only works in new communities. The Israeli kibbutzim are an excellent example - they are quite communist.

The only way to make the world communist involves destroying the old world, perhaps through a global nuclear conflict.

I'll take fat cats and bribery any day over nuclear war.

The Kibbutzim are dying. An imprint of Israel's past fading away over time.

...Dude!!!.
Why is everyone anti-communist? i walk into a shop and say "Hello, im a communist!" and people look at me as though im insane. (blinks.)
The fact remains that examples such as the USSR were not communist and china is just a Totalitarian-Economy First society.

Soooo...
WHY be anti-communist?
Your just Anti-USSR or Anti-China.
So... whats your opinions? (blinks)

Mostly, people are against communism because of the things that have happened when people tried to implement communism, whereas supporters only concern themselves with the utopia they are trying to create.

[QUOTE= I'm no Communist it's immposible

QUOTE= I'm no Communist it's immposible

Code fragment, random capitalisation, lack of semi-colon or full stop, and a misspelling. Now that's what I call a first post!

...Dude!!!.
Why is everyone anti-communist? i walk into a shop and say "Hello, im a communist!" and people look at me as though im insane. (blinks.)
The fact remains that examples such as the USSR were not communist and china is just a Totalitarian-Economy First society.

Soooo...
WHY be anti-communist?
Your just Anti-USSR or Anti-China.
So... whats your opinions? (blinks)
I am anti-Communist because they tend to become Dictatorships naturaly due to the difficulty of working without a leader. Even in the smaller revolutions that failed they had already devoloped a cult of personality.