Communism in practice is just one of those things that doesn't work out as the ideal would like it to. But come on. It's not like Democracy is flawless or anything
Communism is inevitability. Eventually technological progress will eliminate scarcity (after all, there's plenty of raw materials and energy in the solar system) and money will cease to exist as a relevant concept. Civilization will inevitably become something Marx would entirely approve of, simply because doing anything else would make no sense.
Of course communism before reaching that point is a broken system, as history nicely demonstrates.
Communism is evil and everyone who supports it is a commy pinko traitor!
In all seriousness, it's a nice thought but as long as resources are limited it can't work. For a society to work, someone has to get the short end of the stick.
Byte wrote: I wonder what the people of North Korea or Cuba have to say? I'm sure its grand!
North Korea isn't Communist. Cuba is influenced, but isn't by definition.
Communism by definition is a society which has no class to speak of and is controlled by the people as a whole. No single person has authority over another. Money wouldn't exist, and everything would be divided equally amongst the people.
Byte wrote: I wonder what the people of North Korea or Cuba have to say? I'm sure its grand!
North Korea isn't Communist. Cuba is influenced, but isn't by definition.
Communism by definition is a society which has no class to speak of and is controlled by the people as a whole. No single person has authority over another. Money wouldn't exist, and everything would be divided equally amongst the people.
Really, check your history. That's the whole point. Disguised as a benefit for the people, than deceived by a dictator. Read up on the American Korean War and China's involvement. That since your in learning mode, check out the USSR's adoption of Cuba and Castro's rule. Read up some next time.
Name one true Communist country by definition, o wait you can't. That's the rub.
Byte wrote: I wonder what the people of North Korea or Cuba have to say? I'm sure its grand!
North Korea isn't Communist. Cuba is influenced, but isn't by definition.
Communism by definition is a society which has no class to speak of and is controlled by the people as a whole. No single person has authority over another. Money wouldn't exist, and everything would be divided equally amongst the people.
Really, check your history. That's the whole point. Disguised as a benefit for the people, than deceived by a dictator. Read up on the American Korean War and China's involvement. That since your in learning mode, check out the USSR's adoption of Cuba and Castro's rule. Read up some next time.
Name one true Communist country by definition, o wait you can't. That's the rub.
That's my point.
There has never been a true communist country, and I agree with your benefit of the people statement, thought that applies to more than just Communism, it applies to almost every political party that has ever existed.
Peregrine wrote: Communism is inevitability. Eventually technological progress will eliminate scarcity (after all, there's plenty of raw materials and energy in the solar system) and money will cease to exist as a relevant concept. Civilization will inevitably become something Marx would entirely approve of, simply because doing anything else would make no sense.
Of course communism before reaching that point is a broken system, as history nicely demonstrates.
Yep basically this, Communism is impossible under present resource and social conditions. Which is really too bad, true communism is a beautiful thing, the ideal of communism is a beautiful thing, but without mankind being ready for it, like many things it's a concept that is tarnished and let down by the human element.
As long as theres a bigger cave and more women in the other clan we will have the "haves and the have nots" Its human nature..chemical if you will.
Communal government can never happen. Look at all the 70's cults, it was all about the leader having access to the women and children while being revered as a prophet/god.
Byte wrote: Name one true Communist country by definition, o wait you can't. That's the rub.
A country, in the modern sense? Of course we can't; no modern nation has done so.
But many of the pre-Columbian native American tribes managed it quite effortlessly. The trick is making it work at something bigger than the tribal level.
But many of the pre-Columbian native American tribes managed it quite effortlessly. The trick is making it work at something bigger than the tribal level.
I was just going to mention this. Originally, Native American tribes had what was basically a communist society and it worked very well. Only problem is, once you get to a larger size you get idiots who mess everything up by trying to gain more power or take more than their fair share. I've gotten into a very lengthy talk about the specifics of communism at a small scale versus a nation-sized scale before, but I don't feel like typing it all up unless anyone is interested.
I don't know comrade, I find it a party and fantastic leaders, where every one is the same. /sarcasm
In all honesty Communism is the perfect form of government, but ever since we are human we screw it up, if we weren't human the system would work, there have been no pure communistic systems. So ever since it cannot be performed correctly it is a bad form of government as our frame of minds would not be able to complete it correctly.
But many of the pre-Columbian native American tribes managed it quite effortlessly. The trick is making it work at something bigger than the tribal level.
I was just going to mention this. Originally, Native American tribes had what was basically a communist society and it worked very well. Only problem is, once you get to a larger size you get idiots who mess everything up by trying to gain more power or take more than their fair share. I've gotten into a very lengthy talk about the specifics of communism at a small scale versus a nation-sized scale before, but I don't feel like typing it all up unless anyone is interested.
I think it's really unfair to characterize Native American society in North American, and points further south as "small scale" the Lakota Sioux maintained healthy community focused living with millions of members spread across hundred of bands. As did many other native tribes with similar cultural ideals. That said I would be interested to hear you expand briefly on small scale communism, I've probably written something similar at some point but it's always nice to hear another point of view.
Native Americans were not and never had been "True Communists." They had a caste system, and they had leaders who held power over other people. By no means were the communist, and anyone who declares otherwise is deluding themselves based upon an academically romanticised version of history.
But many of the pre-Columbian native American tribes managed it quite effortlessly. The trick is making it work at something bigger than the tribal level.
I was just going to mention this. Originally, Native American tribes had what was basically a communist society and it worked very well. Only problem is, once you get to a larger size you get idiots who mess everything up by trying to gain more power or take more than their fair share. I've gotten into a very lengthy talk about the specifics of communism at a small scale versus a nation-sized scale before, but I don't feel like typing it all up unless anyone is interested.
I think it's really unfair to characterize Native American society in North American, and points further south as "small scale" the Lakota Sioux maintained healthy community focused living with millions of members spread across hundred of bands. As did many other native tribes with similar cultural ideals. That said I would be interested to hear you expand briefly on small scale communism, I've probably written something similar at some point but it's always nice to hear another point of view.
First, I'll admit that I haven't studied native american culture, however I would assume that the large Sioux community was broken up into smaller portions that were only loosely connected to each other compared to how most nations operate today.
Anyway, I don't have time to type up everything right now, but one of the main arguments against pure communism is that someone can do less work than someone else and still receive the same benefits, which promotes laziness and reduces productivity. In a small scale community, this would be less of a problem. Because of the low number of people, people who are slacking off significantly would be noted quickly, and either A) Properly disciplined by whoever has the job to do such a thing, or B) shunned by society.
Let's go over option B first. In a smaller community, more than two or three people not doing their work simply would not happen, as any more would have a noticeable effect on the community's production capabilities and everyone would receive less resources. The slackers would likely be noted quickly and be shunned by society. Loneliness gets to people quickly (best example I can think of right now is Steinbeck's Of Mice and Men) and the majority of these people would begin working harder due to a desire to fit back into society. In a larger community, you could have a higher number of lazy workers, nullifying the issue of loneliness and alienation. It's similar to an argument I made in another thread about why you get less trolls and annoyances on smaller forums as opposed to large ones like Dakka; people simply don't have anyone to back them up or "feed" them and the desire to identify with a group of people overrides whatever destructive tendencies they may have.
Option A is a bit more straightforward. Take a small tribe for example. People X and Y are slacking off, so person Z tips off the tribal leader about it and he has a quick little talk with them about it and keeps a close eye on them; problem solved. When you move it up to something like a huge factory complex with hundreds or thousands of workers in it, it's much harder to keep track of everyone, and the workers may not even see their supervisors all that often. A very simple example, and I realized my ideas aren't all that developed in this paragraph just yet, but I'm tired. I'll go over some other subjects tomorrow, I quite like talking about things like this
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ratbarf wrote: Native Americans were not and never had been "True Communists." They had a caste system, and they had leaders who held power over other people. By no means were the communist, and anyone who declares otherwise is deluding themselves based upon an academically romanticised version of history.
Communism still has people who act as supervisors and decision makers, they just don't get any benefits over the standard workers. And no one is saying they were "true communists," just that they were about as close as humanity has ever gotten. Stalin-ruled Russia was nowhere even close.
But it doesn't have slaves, a thing that many Native American cultures did have, though more like indentured servitude instead of America's general view of slavery.
This thread again? It's been, like, three weeks since someone started one. I mean, that was on socialism, but still. If we have to keep having threads where someone challenges us to debate some random economic system, can't we at least do one of the whacky ones? Anarcho-syndicalism or something?
Anyhow, if you really want to talk about communism, you have to unpack all the various parts of it, and first take out the stuff that's pure myth, then pull out the stuff that has been associated with communism but isn't actually a definitional part of communism, leaving you with what communism actually is.
First up - the big myths about communism;
"In communist societies everyone gets the same, and so there's no motivation to work harder." Actually different levels of skill are rewarded - doctors get paid a lot more than store clerks.
"In communist societies there is no private property." This isn't true, it is still possible to own cars and even housing (in fact I think there was a point in the 60s where private home ownership in the USSR was higher than in the UK).
Second up, stuff that happens to be associated with communism but is in fact highly negotiable;
Communism does not have to be totalitarian state. If a population democratically elected . That said, you'd have to be mad not to notice that every communist state has been non-democratic, and many horrifically oppressive. Recognising that communism is not inherently undemocratic, but that its only ever happened through non-democratic means actually tells us something pretty powerful about communism - no society has ever actually chosen it through elections. It is not something that people, as a whole, actually want.
All of that leaves us with what communism actually is;
Communism is a society in which the means of production are owned by the people as a whole. That is, all the factories and retail stores and everything are owned by everyone, there is no owner class that commands income simply by owning productive assets. It isn't anything more than this, and it isn't anything less. This means there is no investment market, no collection of people who earn a living figuring out how to get canned corn to the market for 1c less than it currently costs, no people figuring out how to produce a mobile phone that's slightly better than the one that's already on the market. The result of this is that in communist societies stagnation is inevitable, economic progress is limited to what special government initiatives (and that typically ends up being in big grandstanding projects like space exploration). Communist countries have never given us the technological revolutions of microcomputers or the internet, they've never given us a car that didn't suck. But they did put the first man into space.
The point of that exercise is to strip out all the stuff people make a lot of noise about communism, and get to talking about what communism really is, and the truth of why it really did fail. At no time has the people as a whole chosen that system, and when it has been put in place despite the unpopularity, the people have found economic growth (and therefore their standard of living) stagnant compared to modern market economies.
Peregrine wrote: Communism is inevitability. Eventually technological progress will eliminate scarcity (after all, there's plenty of raw materials and energy in the solar system) and money will cease to exist as a relevant concept. Civilization will inevitably become something Marx would entirely approve of, simply because doing anything else would make no sense.
Marx envisioned communism as the freedom to do as one chose, but naively assumed that such freedom implies the absence of malice. I mean, even post scarcity people are likely to take umbrage to the existence of other people only then, being absent material need, there is no reason to restrain oneself.
Though, as it happens, Marx's understanding of communism isn't terribly far from the way life in the West presently is:
In communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic
sebster wrote: This thread again? It's been, like, three weeks since someone started one. I mean, that was on socialism, but still. If we have to keep having threads where someone challenges us to debate some random economic system, can't we at least do one of the whacky ones? Anarcho-syndicalism or something?
We can talk about Mondragon, and how it abuses contractors in order to maintain the image of employee ownership.
whembly wrote: OP: Communism in itself? It's a worthy goal... just won't work due to Human's emotion. Tis why it takes threat of force to implement and maintain.
It really isn't just because of human nature. There have been egalitarian human societies in the past (tribal communes). And as you recognise with Trek's replicators, they'd change things so massively we'd end up somewhere that would be very communistic (well, we could, the impact of technology on social structures is very unpredictable).
It's more that right now the reality of our current economic circumstances means that our primary means of progress is from technology, which comes from innovation driven by private companies seeking profit. It's the 'capital' part of capitalism.
People love to boo hiss the investors, the economic rationalists, the Wall St guys... but that's the stuff that really drive the developing economy. That is why capitalism has advanced to put us where we are today.
Communist societies have all stagnated, because they don't have that.
Sebster where we are today scares me. The fact that monetary institutions are so powerful they cannot be prosecuted anymore is worrying to say the least.
Bullockist wrote: Sebster where we are today scares me. The fact that monetary institutions are so powerful they cannot be prosecuted anymore is worrying to say the least.
Where we are ain't great. I mean, the banking and finance sector fethed up, and fethed up so badly they wiped 5% of world wide GDP... and no-one did anything about it. We got the usual suspects making silly noises (Tea Party or Occupy, take your pick) but in terms of serious, adult people talking about serious, adult solutions... nothing. There is absolutely nothing saying we aren't just going to rebuild and throw ourselves straight into another bubble & GFC, because we didn't change the regs in any meaningful way after the last feth up.
But that's got nothing to do with this thread, because the answer to inadequate controls on essential economic sectors ain't communism.
It's politically charged of course so YMMV, I would point out that people aren't desperately heading to Cuba in anything that can float, so I'd guess it's probably not that great.
It has an okay system. You can say it's a pretty good system considering the limitations of being a fairly poor nation. But those limitations would be much less if it wasn't a fairly poor nation, and it's a fairly poor nation because its communist (and while much of that is due to communism sucking, it's also in part due to the entirely bizarre US embargo)
I also think it's a bit strange to consider a nation just in terms of its healthcare. That's a really important thing, but when Cuba holds large numbers of political prisoners and press freedom is practically zero (and it's an often deadly thing to challenge that) then it's a bit strange to say 'but they've got adequate healthcare'.
Peregrine wrote: Communism is inevitability. Eventually technological progress will eliminate scarcity (after all, there's plenty of raw materials and energy in the solar system) and money will cease to exist as a relevant concept. Civilization will inevitably become something Marx would entirely approve of, simply because doing anything else would make no sense.
Of course communism before reaching that point is a broken system, as history nicely demonstrates.
There will always be scarcity. Communism inevitably leads to the joys of a murdering dictatorship.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Byte wrote: As long as theres a bigger cave and more women in the other clan we will have the "haves and the have nots" Its human nature..chemical if you will.
Communal government can never happen. Look at all the 70's cults, it was all about the leader having access to the women and children while being revered as a prophet/god.
I'll take capitalism.
Unless you're the guy with 47 mercedes and really bad sunglasses of course. Then its pretty cool.
Byte wrote: Name one true Communist country by definition, o wait you can't. That's the rub.
A country, in the modern sense? Of course we can't; no modern nation has done so.
But many of the pre-Columbian native American tribes managed it quite effortlessly. The trick is making it work at something bigger than the tribal level.
You mean the ones where they executed prisoners by ripping their hearts out? Sure they did. They were loving communal empires, except of course the royalty and priests had these really big houses, and everyone else didn't.
Karl Marx himself thought that Russia would be the last country to be communist. Communism is a gradual change over time, Empires to Kingdoms to Democracy to Socialism to Communism. China and North Korea would be just as corrupt if they are "capitalistic". You don't see people calling out the "failing of capitalism" because Libya, Zimbawae and Syria are corrupt. Also, this reminds me of 18th and 19th century when the ruling class thought that democracy is a bad idea. You could say the Russian revolution is like the French Revolution and the first attempt of communism did not succeed. So what? What did we learn? We can learn from past Commmunist societies to improve the ideals and try not to make the same mistakes.
Peregrine wrote: Communism is inevitability. Eventually technological progress will eliminate scarcity (after all, there's plenty of raw materials and energy in the solar system) and money will cease to exist as a relevant concept. Civilization will inevitably become something Marx would entirely approve of, simply because doing anything else would make no sense.
Of course communism before reaching that point is a broken system, as history nicely demonstrates.
There will always be scarcity. Communism inevitably leads to the joys of a murdering dictatorship.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Byte wrote: As long as theres a bigger cave and more women in the other clan we will have the "haves and the have nots" Its human nature..chemical if you will.
Communal government can never happen. Look at all the 70's cults, it was all about the leader having access to the women and children while being revered as a prophet/god.
I'll take capitalism.
Unless you're the guy with 47 mercedes and really bad sunglasses of course. Then its pretty cool.
Byte wrote: Name one true Communist country by definition, o wait you can't. That's the rub.
A country, in the modern sense? Of course we can't; no modern nation has done so.
But many of the pre-Columbian native American tribes managed it quite effortlessly. The trick is making it work at something bigger than the tribal level.
You mean the ones where they executed prisoners by ripping their hearts out? Sure they did. They were loving communal empires, except of course the royalty and priests had these really big houses, and everyone else didn't.
Your first statement is similar to what the monarchy use as their reason to try and destroy democratic nations in 18th and 19th century Europe. You have just quoted propaganda of the first degree. If American did not try to intervene for the corrupt South Vietnamese regime, Uncle Ho would be left in charge and the country would of been left in peace. I remember you are a banker, you are an upper class citizen who uses propaganda to try and demean the ideaology that gives wealth inequality and helps the poor. Shame on you, only the most oppressed men and women can believe the capitalist propaganda without critising it.
While the US is commonly vilified as the bastion of capitalism, it is little known that the US too has tried communism. It was only when communism failed that property rights and capitalism took hold.
Let us go back into history and see what lessons America learned from its relatively short dalliance with Maoism much before the ‘great leader' himself was born.
The year was 1607. The first 104 settlers had arrived from Europe in Jamestown in the Virginia Tidewater region of the US in May. They found soil which was fertile beyond what they had seen in the lands which they had left. Fruits were abundant. Wild game such as deer and turkey were everywhere. There was no shortage of fish and other seafood. And yet within six months 66 of the original Jamestown, Virginia settlers had died. Only 38 survived.
Another 500 settlers were again sent to settle in Virginia in 1609 and within six months 440 of these too died by starvation and disease. This was called ‘starving time' and one eyewitness described it in English of those times, ‘So great was our famine, that a Savage we slew and buried, the poorer sorte took him up againe and eat him; and so did divers one another boyled and stewed with roots and herbs.'
How could this be? How could there be such death and starvation amidst so much plenty of meat, fruits, and fish. The fault as the witness said lay not in the ‘barrenness and defect of the Countrie' but in the ‘want of providence, industry and government'.
What caused this lack of ‘industrie'? Were the Virginian settlers lazy and indolent? It could not be. People who were sent there were the chosen ones – the very best of men.
The problem was that all the men who were sent were bonded labourers. They had no stake in what they produced. They were bound by contract to put all they produced into a common pool to be used to support their colony as a whole. This was communism in its purest form. Everyone was supposed to work according to ability and take according to need.
As so frequently happens with present day government policies, the results were the opposite of what was intended. Since hard work was not personally beneficial for the settlers they responded by stopping work.
Phillip A. Bruce, a late 19th century US historian, wrote of the Jamestown immigrants, “The settlers did not have even a modified interest in the soil … . Everything produced by them went into the store, in which they had no proprietorship.” The result as Bruce wrote would be what anyone who has any knowledge of human nature would expect, men, even the most energetic, refused to work.
This is what happened in Mao's China and in Soviet Russia on a grand scale. In America a few hundred deaths stopped the communist experiment, in China and Russia, millions had to die before these nations abandoned the principles of Marx, Lenin, and Mao.
Jamestown changed course just two years later in 1611 with arrival of the ‘high marshall' Sir Thomas Dale from the UK. He understood the problem, freed the settlers by abrogating communal ownership. Each man received three acres of land and, other than a lump sum tax of 2 ½ barrels of corn, did not have to contribute anything to the common pool. The colony immediately began to prosper. It prospered because each individual directly benefited by his labour and knew that he would also bear the full consequences of any reduction in output. Private ownership and capitalism worked.
Communism doesn't work because it destroys the reward and work nexus. Communism doesn't work because the absence of property rights heralds the end of all incentive to produce. Communism doesn't work because humans do no wish to sacrifice themselves to the common good.
Sturmtruppen wrote: A concept tarnished by those who have claimed to be working towards its ends, or evil in its purest form? What do the people of Dakka Dakka think?
Communism is a pure wonderful idea that can never be carried out because Humans are flawed and greedy. Simply put the flaw of communism is the people attempting it. Even if you have Honorable Fair Leadership, there will be laziness elsewhere this cancer spread and hurts the overall group.
Communism can work in small communities of less than 1000 as the number and social pressure work towards keeping the group in one cohesive force moving forwards toward their goal.
rockerbikie wrote: Karl Marx himself thought that Russia would be the last country to be communist. Communism is a gradual change over time, Empires to Kingdoms to Democracy to Socialism to Communism. China and North Korea would be just as corrupt if they are "capitalistic". You don't see people calling out the "failing of capitalism" because Libya, Zimbawae and Syria are corrupt. Also, this reminds me of 18th and 19th century when the ruling class thought that democracy is a bad idea. You could say the Russian revolution is like the French Revolution and the first attempt of communism did not succeed. So what? What did we learn? We can learn from past Commmunist societies to improve the ideals and try not to make the same mistakes.
Peregrine wrote: Communism is inevitability. Eventually technological progress will eliminate scarcity (after all, there's plenty of raw materials and energy in the solar system) and money will cease to exist as a relevant concept. Civilization will inevitably become something Marx would entirely approve of, simply because doing anything else would make no sense.
Of course communism before reaching that point is a broken system, as history nicely demonstrates.
There will always be scarcity. Communism inevitably leads to the joys of a murdering dictatorship.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Byte wrote: As long as theres a bigger cave and more women in the other clan we will have the "haves and the have nots" Its human nature..chemical if you will.
Communal government can never happen. Look at all the 70's cults, it was all about the leader having access to the women and children while being revered as a prophet/god.
I'll take capitalism.
Unless you're the guy with 47 mercedes and really bad sunglasses of course. Then its pretty cool.
Byte wrote: Name one true Communist country by definition, o wait you can't. That's the rub.
A country, in the modern sense? Of course we can't; no modern nation has done so.
But many of the pre-Columbian native American tribes managed it quite effortlessly. The trick is making it work at something bigger than the tribal level.
You mean the ones where they executed prisoners by ripping their hearts out? Sure they did. They were loving communal empires, except of course the royalty and priests had these really big houses, and everyone else didn't.
Your first statement is similar to what the monarchy use as their reason to try and destroy democratic nations in 18th and 19th century Europe. You have just quoted propaganda of the first degree. If American did not try to intervene for the corrupt South Vietnamese regime, Uncle Ho would be left in charge and the country would of been left in peace. I remember you are a banker, you are an upper class citizen who uses propaganda to try and demean the ideaology that gives wealth inequality and helps the poor. Shame on you, only the most oppressed men and women can believe the capitalist propaganda without critising it.
What propaganda?
1. there will always be scarcity. Thats just physics. Duh.
2. Communism is the worst of all worlds. A) it ignores basic human precepts; B) it ignores basic physics rules; C) to achieve it, it requires massive, unyielding dictatorship and intrusion in all aspects of life. D) once the dictactorship gets power, it never gives up power.
Now that can be evilllzzz dictactorship like North Korea or Pol Pot, or it can be a Vogon style bureaucratic dictatorship. It still dictatorship. Now come and witness the violence inherent in the system!
Human nature dictates that communism is utopia. You'll only find it in heaven. Indeed many of the precepts are like that.
Sturmtruppen wrote: A concept tarnished by those who have claimed to be working towards its ends, or evil in its purest form? What do the people of Dakka Dakka think?
Communism is a pure wonderful idea trhat can never be carried out because Humans are flawed and greedy. Simply put the flaw of communism is the people attempting it. Even if you have Honorable Fair Leadership, there will be laziness elsewhere this cancer spread and hurts the overall group.
Communism can work in small communities of less than 1000 as the number and social pressure work towards keeping the group in one cohesive force moving forwards toward their goal.
2. Marriage is the worst of all worlds. A) it ignores basic human precepts; B) it ignores basic physics rules; C) to achieve it, it requires massive, unyielding dictatorship and intrusion in all aspects of life. D) once the wife gets power, it never gives up power.
2. Marriage is the worst of all worlds. A) it ignores basic human precepts; B) it ignores basic physics rules; C) to achieve it, it requires massive, unyielding dictatorship and intrusion in all aspects of life. D) once the wife gets power, it never gives up power.
Frazz, I fixed that for you
I think what we have here is what is called "revealed truth."
However, the main issue is the economic problem, in that everyone has unlimited wants but the resources are scarce.
The world, at the moment, is massively overpopulated (in my view anyway, have you tried getting through Dubai Mall on a Friday afternoon?). As a result, there's great competition to gain resources among people and countries. This is demonstrated by the world's inequality. Some have a lot, others don't, those with a lot don't really want to give a lot away (I'm not talking about the 1% or anything. I'm talking about the Western World compared to, say, Sierra Leone). The competitiveness therefore results in greed. Imagine having a room full of 100 dollar bills: at some point, you'd want more than just one room of 100 dollar bills, won't you? And if you see Mr Smith across the road carting wheelbarrows of money into his house, you'd want to be equal, or better, than him, won't you? Then we have poor Mr Jones next door to you and Mr Smith, who doesn't have this room stuffed with money. He'd want a room stuffed with money as well, won't he?
So let's say Mr Jones becomes the head of this state. He's still poor(er), and so he tries to redistribute the wealth. You and Mr Smith probably wouldn't be too happy about this, after all, in your eyes you've worked hard for this room full of 100 dollar bills, and you've seen your wealth accumulate over time. You'd resist Mr Jones' attempts to redistribute your wealth, wouldn't you?
This is why communism won't work: people who have the stuff don't want to give it up, and people without it will want the stuff that others have. This is natural. You cannot change it. No amount of technology will prevent scarcity, especially now, where there are billions of people in the world who have the greed of Mr Smith. Why be someone's equal when you can be better?
rockerbikie wrote: Karl Marx himself thought that Russia would be the last country to be communist. Communism is a gradual change over time, Empires to Kingdoms to Democracy to Socialism to Communism. China and North Korea would be just as corrupt if they are "capitalistic". You don't see people calling out the "failing of capitalism" because Libya, Zimbawae and Syria are corrupt. Also, this reminds me of 18th and 19th century when the ruling class thought that democracy is a bad idea. You could say the Russian revolution is like the French Revolution and the first attempt of communism did not succeed. So what? What did we learn? We can learn from past Commmunist societies to improve the ideals and try not to make the same mistakes.
Peregrine wrote: Communism is inevitability. Eventually technological progress will eliminate scarcity (after all, there's plenty of raw materials and energy in the solar system) and money will cease to exist as a relevant concept. Civilization will inevitably become something Marx would entirely approve of, simply because doing anything else would make no sense.
Of course communism before reaching that point is a broken system, as history nicely demonstrates.
There will always be scarcity. Communism inevitably leads to the joys of a murdering dictatorship.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Byte wrote: As long as theres a bigger cave and more women in the other clan we will have the "haves and the have nots" Its human nature..chemical if you will.
Communal government can never happen. Look at all the 70's cults, it was all about the leader having access to the women and children while being revered as a prophet/god.
I'll take capitalism.
Unless you're the guy with 47 mercedes and really bad sunglasses of course. Then its pretty cool.
Byte wrote: Name one true Communist country by definition, o wait you can't. That's the rub.
A country, in the modern sense? Of course we can't; no modern nation has done so.
But many of the pre-Columbian native American tribes managed it quite effortlessly. The trick is making it work at something bigger than the tribal level.
You mean the ones where they executed prisoners by ripping their hearts out? Sure they did. They were loving communal empires, except of course the royalty and priests had these really big houses, and everyone else didn't.
Your first statement is similar to what the monarchy use as their reason to try and destroy democratic nations in 18th and 19th century Europe. You have just quoted propaganda of the first degree. If American did not try to intervene for the corrupt South Vietnamese regime, Uncle Ho would be left in charge and the country would of been left in peace. I remember you are a banker, you are an upper class citizen who uses propaganda to try and demean the ideaology that gives wealth inequality and helps the poor. Shame on you, only the most oppressed men and women can believe the capitalist propaganda without critising it.
What propaganda?
1. there will always be scarcity. Thats just physics. Duh.
2. Communism is the worst of all worlds. A) it ignores basic human precepts; B) it ignores basic physics rules; C) to achieve it, it requires massive, unyielding dictatorship and intrusion in all aspects of life. D) once the dictactorship gets power, it never gives up power.
Now that can be evilllzzz dictactorship like North Korea or Pol Pot, or it can be a Vogon style bureaucratic dictatorship. It still dictatorship. Now come and witness the violence inherent in the system!
Human nature dictates that communism is utopia. You'll only find it in heaven. Indeed many of the precepts are like that.
Sturmtruppen wrote: A concept tarnished by those who have claimed to be working towards its ends, or evil in its purest form? What do the people of Dakka Dakka think?
Communism is a pure wonderful idea trhat can never be carried out because Humans are flawed and greedy. Simply put the flaw of communism is the people attempting it. Even if you have Honorable Fair Leadership, there will be laziness elsewhere this cancer spread and hurts the overall group.
Communism can work in small communities of less than 1000 as the number and social pressure work towards keeping the group in one cohesive force moving forwards toward their goal.
True dis.
What I'm getting at the moment you know as much about Communism as the propaganda set against communism has said. You blindly follow the in doctrine taught at your school which is put in place so you follow an ideal that coincides with the capitalistic beliefs of America. If you are going the condemning way, I can do it too, Capitalism supports the slavery and abysmal conditions in Africa and Asia. Capitalism co-incidended with colonialism. You are trying to indicate that class equality causes dictatorship. You fail to realise that if communism does not mean dictatorship, if there is a democratic communist nation. There are fixes for how people structure communism at the moment, but if it succeeds everyone will prosper like democracy has done for us, it can work hand in hand. Rather than focusing on social inequality, you should be worried about helping your fellow man as well. It should be on how hard you work but at the moment in this class system, it can not happen. Cambodia not any of those "communist" nations were ready for communism, communism requires educated people, we need a slow integration. We are not going to become communist in one day. It is over time as the lower classes struggle against the upper ruling elite. We won't get communism any time soon but at least strive for it.
However, the main issue is the economic problem, in that everyone has unlimited wants but the resources are scarce.
The world, at the moment, is massively overpopulated (in my view anyway, have you tried getting through Dubai Mall on a Friday afternoon?). As a result, there's great competition to gain resources among people and countries. This is demonstrated by the world's inequality. Some have a lot, others don't, those with a lot don't really want to give a lot away (I'm not talking about the 1% or anything. I'm talking about the Western World compared to, say, Sierra Leone). The competitiveness therefore results in greed. Imagine having a room full of 100 dollar bills: at some point, you'd want more than just one room of 100 dollar bills, won't you? And if you see Mr Smith across the road carting wheelbarrows of money into his house, you'd want to be equal, or better, than him, won't you? Then we have poor Mr Jones next door to you and Mr Smith, who doesn't have this room stuffed with money. He'd want a room stuffed with money as well, won't he?
So let's say Mr Jones becomes the head of this state. He's still poor(er), and so he tries to redistribute the wealth. You and Mr Smith probably wouldn't be too happy about this, after all, in your eyes you've worked hard for this room full of 100 dollar bills, and you've seen your wealth accumulate over time. You'd resist Mr Jones' attempts to redistribute your wealth, wouldn't you?
This is why communism won't work: people who have the stuff don't want to give it up, and people without it will want the stuff that others have. This is natural. You cannot change it. No amount of technology will prevent scarcity, especially now, where there are billions of people in the world who have the greed of Mr Smith. Why be someone's equal when you can be better?
False. With renewable energy and technology built now and technology in development. We can feed the whole of humanity. We have so much food it just sits out on the shelf and thrown out when past work date. We are taught in a capitalistic competitive society that divides us at birth. Sets up class to divide us, then they try to blind us. I don't see how it is far that a person with nasty but efficent standards should earn more money than virtuous people.
ExNoctemNacimur wrote: With renewable energy, what are you making parts for the machinery out of?
Solar which can be formed from recyclable goods. Imagine if we could clone animals and use them for food. A majority of plastics and metals can be recycled.
Yes, but things that are thrown out have a tendency to get thrown in a landfill. Who wants to open up a landfill, climb in there and collect the plastic?
What I'm getting at the moment you know as much about Communism as the propaganda set against communism has said.
You like saying propaganda a lot. I like to say queso much more.
You blindly follow the in doctrine taught at your school which is put in place so you follow an ideal that coincides with the capitalistic beliefs of America.
Ok I’ve learned some important things from this.
1. You don’t take disagreement well.
2. You probably have a beard that isn’t making it. But you keep trying. One day the college chicks may take you seriously. But that will not be this day!
3. You’re not into reading and actually debating the topic.
If you are going the condemning way, I can do it too,
Condemning what? I’m observing that communism relies on aspects of human nature that don’t exist, and ignores other aspects. I also noted communism represents utopia - aka paradise. That’s not exactly condemning something.
Capitalism supports the slavery and abysmal conditions in Africa and Asia. Capitalism co-incidended with colonialism. You are trying to indicate that class equality causes dictatorship.
We’re not discussing the evils of capitalism. We can do that, but that’s separate.
You fail to realise that if communism does not mean dictatorship,
yea it does. Evidently you don’t like top actually read your commie pinko manual. A dictatorship (the State) requires it to reallocate everything and form the society. Theoretically communism is the state beyond this but 1) it never gets there; 2) you have to keep the dictatorship to continue to allocate.
if there is a democratic communist nation. There are fixes for how people structure communism at the moment, but if it succeeds everyone will prosper like democracy has done for us, it can work hand in hand.
This is cute. Its like watching a little bunny by the side of the road, shortly before the hawk pounces and kills it right in front of you. Tbone was cuter when he intentionally stepped on a bug once.
Rather than focusing on social inequality, you should be worried about helping your fellow man as well.
Wait, what? I thought we were discussing communism, not “ten reasons I should shut up before I make comments about other people I have no clue about”
And for the record dogs rule, people drool!
It should be on how hard you work but at the moment in this class system, it can not happen. C
What? Now you’re just kind of rambling.
Cambodia not any of those "communist" nations were ready for communism,
Well the one quarter of the population that were killed certainly weren’t ready for you know, being killed and all.
communism requires educated people, we need a slow integration. We are not going to become communist in one day. It is over time as the lower classes struggle against the upper ruling elite. We won't get communism any time soon but at least strive for it.
Why? The theory started when almost no one was educated. What does education have to do with. Some of the greediest people on the planet are educated. In fact, all of them are. Its like everyone has their own self-interest to look after.
ExNoctemNacimur wrote: With renewable energy, what are you making parts for the machinery out of?
Solar which can be formed from recyclable goods. Imagine if we could clone animals and use them for food. A majority of plastics and metals can be recycled.
But I want more food. And I like swiss cake rolls not Russian cake rolls. Oh crap your whole system just collapsed, all for the love of swiss cake rolls.
ExNoctemNacimur wrote: Yes, but things that are thrown out have a tendency to get thrown in a landfill. Who wants to open up a landfill, climb in there and collect the plastic?
Possibly the employees of a recycling corporation who get a nice paycheck for doing so.
Why should they expose themselves to toxic dangers when they can drive a bus or be a janitor? After all, under communism, there's no such thing as a nice paycheck. Everyone gets the same.
Frazzled wrote: Appending to just your quote as its getting long.
What I'm getting at the moment you know as much about Communism as the propaganda set against communism has said.
You like saying propaganda a lot. I like to say queso much more.
You blindly follow the in doctrine taught at your school which is put in place so you follow an ideal that coincides with the capitalistic beliefs of America.
Ok I’ve learned some important things from this.
1. You don’t take disagreement well.
2. You probably have a beard that isn’t making it. But you keep trying. One day the college chicks may take you seriously. But that will not be this day!
3. You’re not into reading and actually debating the topic.
If you are going the condemning way, I can do it too,
Condemning what? I’m observing that communism relies on aspects of human nature that don’t exist, and ignores other aspects. I also noted communism represents utopia - aka paradise. That’s not exactly condemning something.
Capitalism supports the slavery and abysmal conditions in Africa and Asia. Capitalism co-incidended with colonialism. You are trying to indicate that class equality causes dictatorship.
We’re not discussing the evils of capitalism. We can do that, but that’s separate.
You fail to realise that if communism does not mean dictatorship,
yea it does. Evidently you don’t like top actually read your commie pinko manual. A dictatorship (the State) requires it to reallocate everything and form the society. Theoretically communism is the state beyond this but 1) it never gets there; 2) you have to keep the dictatorship to continue to allocate.
if there is a democratic communist nation. There are fixes for how people structure communism at the moment, but if it succeeds everyone will prosper like democracy has done for us, it can work hand in hand.
This is cute. Its like watching a little bunny by the side of the road, shortly before the hawk pounces and kills it right in front of you. Tbone was cuter when he intentionally stepped on a bug once.
Rather than focusing on social inequality, you should be worried about helping your fellow man as well.
Wait, what? I thought we were discussing communism, not “ten reasons I should shut up before I make comments about other people I have no clue about”
And for the record dogs rule, people drool!
It should be on how hard you work but at the moment in this class system, it can not happen. C
What? Now you’re just kind of rambling.
Cambodia not any of those "communist" nations were ready for communism,
Well the one quarter of the population that were killed certainly weren’t ready for you know, being killed and all.
communism requires educated people, we need a slow integration. We are not going to become communist in one day. It is over time as the lower classes struggle against the upper ruling elite. We won't get communism any time soon but at least strive for it.
Why? The theory started when almost no one was educated. What does education have to do with. Some of the greediest people on the planet are educated. In fact, all of them are. Its like everyone has their own self-interest to look after.
ExNoctemNacimur wrote: With renewable energy, what are you making parts for the machinery out of?
Solar which can be formed from recyclable goods. Imagine if we could clone animals and use them for food. A majority of plastics and metals can be recycled.
But I want more food. And I like swiss cake rolls not Russian cake rolls. Oh crap your whole system just collapsed, all for the love of swiss cake rolls.
My observations from forums posts have been that you are socially left winged and economically right winged. I think by browsing the forums I know quite a lot about you. I am actually into reading, the first problem is that you think you can attack communism without a direct attack back. Pol Pot if you read his policies were more under the line of neotribalism. Your quote about the bunny and the hawk is exactly what happens to the lower class by the upper class. The Upper class and the capitalists control a majority of the assets in America. The top 1% owns 40% of assets. The idea of rising is class does not realisically happen often in capitalist society, wealthy children are inheriently better off. Self interest should be inheriently unimportant compared to working and bettering the state. I am not a "greedy" person. I believe in the good of people and society. Communism is not clear cut into a manual so much, if I have a different approach to it, I have so ever right to take it.
My observations from forums posts have been that you are socially left winged and economically right winged. I think by browsing the forums I know quite a lot about you.
And yet made some asinine statement that I should care more for others. If you knew me you’d realize that was in error.
I am actually into reading, the first problem is that you think you can attack communism without a direct attack back.
What are you the Red Guards? How about discussing the actual merits of the topic instead? Yet if you’d note from the OP – THAT WAS THE POINT.
Pol Pot if you read his policies were more under the line of neotribalism.
Yes, coffee shop communists love to say communism hasn’t been tried yet.
Your quote about the bunny and the hawk is exactly what happens to the lower class by the upper class. The Upper class and the capitalists control a majority of the assets in America. The top 1% owns 40% of assets. The idea of rising is class does not realisically happen often in capitalist society, wealthy children are inheriently better off.
Yep, unfortunately that has nothing to do with the discussion ABOUT COMMUNISM.
Self interest should be inheriently unimportant compared to working and bettering the state.
Should be? I should be the wiener dog spazz emprah, but that’s not going to happen either.
I am not a "greedy" person. I believe in the good of people and society.
Life will disabuse you of that error.
Communism is not clear cut into a manual so much, if I have a different approach to it, I have so ever right to take it.
Peregrine wrote: Communism is inevitability. Eventually technological progress will eliminate scarcity (after all, there's plenty of raw materials and energy in the solar system) and money will cease to exist as a relevant concept. Civilization will inevitably become something Marx would entirely approve of, simply because doing anything else would make no sense.
Of course communism before reaching that point is a broken system, as history nicely demonstrates.
Even then I seriously doubt that it would work.
There would still be some people that would wan't to have more than those around them for whatever reason, and then, like it always has, the whole utopia would come crumbling down...
Communism has large glaring flaw that for some reason most people overlook: it doesn't take human nature into account.
Marx was very . . . shall we say . . . non-descriptive of Communism itself. He mainly criticised the perceived corruption of society. His manifesto is very light on theory on socialist and communist governments.
Peregrine wrote: Communism is inevitability. Eventually technological progress will eliminate scarcity (after all, there's plenty of raw materials and energy in the solar system) and money will cease to exist as a relevant concept. Civilization will inevitably become something Marx would entirely approve of, simply because doing anything else would make no sense.
Of course communism before reaching that point is a broken system, as history nicely demonstrates.
Even then I seriously doubt that it would work.
There would still be some people that would wan't to have more than those around them for whatever reason, and then, like it always has, the whole utopia would come crumbling down...
Communism has large glaring flaw that for some reason most people overlook: it doesn't take human nature into account.
I pretty much agree with this.
Eventually, you're going to run out of resources. When you run out of your stuff, what then? Your society, which probably has grown tremendously, will not be able to sustain itself, and then you're fethed.
rockerbikie wrote: Self interest should be inheriently unimportant compared to working and bettering the state. I am not a "greedy" person. I believe in the good of people and society.
That is a really "cute" way of thinking. Don't worry, that kind of mentality has a tendency to disappear when you leave your teens.
captain collius wrote: Even if you have Honorable Fair Leadership, there will be laziness elsewhere this cancer spread and hurts the overall group.
Communism can work in small communities of less than 1000 as the number and social pressure work towards keeping the group in one cohesive force moving forwards toward their goal.
Apparently people are not looking at the stuff I pasted into my "spoiler". It's about the Plymouth and Jamestown colonies and their experimentation with communism. Both colonies were under one thousand and both nearly failed catastrophically until communist practices and policies were abolished.
captain collius wrote: Even if you have Honorable Fair Leadership, there will be laziness elsewhere this cancer spread and hurts the overall group.
Communism can work in small communities of less than 1000 as the number and social pressure work towards keeping the group in one cohesive force moving forwards toward their goal.
Apparently people are not looking at the stuff I pasted into my "spoiler". It's about the Plymouth and Jamestown colonies and their experimentation with communism. Both colonies were under one thousand and both nearly failed catastrophically until communist practices and policies were abolished.
I know. My point is that it has been sustained in small communities that live without any modern technology under that size. On the whole however communism doesn't work.
It's politically charged of course so YMMV, I would point out that people aren't desperately heading to Cuba in anything that can float, so I'd guess it's probably not that great.
Again, the Cuban refugees I spent 6 months with in GITMO preferred to take their chances in make shift rafts in the open ocean trying to get "freedom".
Byte wrote: The Cuban refugees I spent 6 months with in GITMO had a different opinion. ...
The average life expectancy in Cuba is slightly better than in the States, so I'll safely assume that your refugees had a slight bias.
Again, the Cuban refugees I spent 6 months with in GITMO preferred to take their chances in make shift rafts in the open ocean trying to get "freedom".
Since they most likely hate the Cuban government because of the poor handling of the 1990's famine, it'd be good to point out that they are not taking their chances in makeshift rafts across the ocean because of ''FREEDOM!!!!!!'', but because the U.S. simply has a better economical structure.
Since they most likely hate the Cuban government because of the poor handling of the 1990's famine, it'd be good to point out that they are not taking their chances in makeshift rafts across the ocean because of ''FREEDOM!!!!!!'', but because the U.S. simply has a better economical structure.
Byte wrote: The Cuban refugees I spent 6 months with in GITMO had a different opinion. ...
The average life expectancy in Cuba is slightly better than in the States, so I'll safely assume that your refugees had a slight bias.
Again, the Cuban refugees I spent 6 months with in GITMO preferred to take their chances in make shift rafts in the open ocean trying to get "freedom".
Since they most likely hate the Cuban government because of the poor handling of the 1990's famine, it'd be good to point out that they are not taking their chances in makeshift rafts across the ocean because of ''FREEDOM!!!!!!'', but because the U.S. simply has a better economical structure.
My point exactly
See subject of thread... "Communism".
Should have said 'stronger' economical structure. The sheer size of the US, it's infrastructure and it's bargaining power probably allows it a much greater resistance to things like famine. A communist country could have the same developped infrastructure, the same bargaining power (given that it doesn't isolate itself completely) and the same size. None of these things run against the tenets of communism.
captain collius wrote: Even if you have Honorable Fair Leadership, there will be laziness elsewhere this cancer spread and hurts the overall group.
Communism can work in small communities of less than 1000 as the number and social pressure work towards keeping the group in one cohesive force moving forwards toward their goal.
Apparently people are not looking at the stuff I pasted into my "spoiler".
Frazzled wrote: There will always be scarcity. Communism inevitably leads to the joys of a murdering dictatorship.
And it's that kind of nonsense that made me make my original post.
You can have democratic communism, that we haven't says a lot about communism and the fact that most people really just don't want it.
But to claim that any communist system will be a dictatorship shows a vast ignorance of what communism is.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
rockerbikie wrote: Karl Marx himself thought that Russia would be the last country to be communist. Communism is a gradual change over time, Empires to Kingdoms to Democracy to Socialism to Communism. China and North Korea would be just as corrupt if they are "capitalistic". You don't see people calling out the "failing of capitalism" because Libya, Zimbawae and Syria are corrupt. Also, this reminds me of 18th and 19th century when the ruling class thought that democracy is a bad idea. You could say the Russian revolution is like the French Revolution and the first attempt of communism did not succeed. So what? What did we learn? We can learn from past Commmunist societies to improve the ideals and try not to make the same mistakes.
Or we learn from the 130 odd years of history since Marx's death, and realise that while his ideas were a massive stride forward in understanding modern history, they were far from complete, and his predictions in many places wildly inaccurate.
But then, maybe for you its more fun to spew out superficial student political slogans... in which case carry on. Learn nothing, shout more.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Breotan wrote: The problem was that all the men who were sent were bonded labourers. They had no stake in what they produced. They were bound by contract to put all they produced into a common pool to be used to support their colony as a whole. This was communism in its purest form. Everyone was supposed to work according to ability and take according to need.
That isn't communism. This is fething ridiculous. People just fething make up gak in their head, call it communism and go about discussing the subject.
Communism is a response to an existing capitalist system. It takes the means of production and puts it in the hands of the people, to be used for the common good. That means there needs to be some actual fething means of production... the stuff that needed a capitalist system to produce it in the first place.
Claiming some whacky ass bonded labour agricultural scheme was communism misses the whole point of what communism is. It would mean, stupidly enough, that Tsarist Russia and it's serfs were a kind of communism, given their proceeds were all handed over. And of course, given that system survived for hundreds of years, it means the conclusion of the article that communism destroyed Jamestown is even sillier.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
captain collius wrote: Communism is a pure wonderful idea that can never be carried out because Humans are flawed and greedy. Simply put the flaw of communism is the people attempting it. Even if you have Honorable Fair Leadership, there will be laziness elsewhere this cancer spread and hurts the overall group.
Oh for feth's sake, does no-one fething read anything anymore? They just see 'communism' and think 'fething sweet, here's my chance to dump the information I remember from that lesson in sociology 14 years ago, but I better not read the thread, or the world will be deprived of my insights for at least 14 seconds longer!'
Anyhow, you're wrong and your understanding of communism is flawed.
There is nothing in communism that prevents there being a personal incentive towards work. Higher skilled jobs can be paid more, and more productive workers can be paid bonuses. The lazy can be fired.
To repeat my point from earlier, the place communism fails is with market forces. It removes the entrepreneur, and so society loses the drive that looks to increase efficiency, and deliver a better product. That's why communism works just fine when you're moving from a highly wasteful agrarian economy (just picking up labour resources and dumping them in factories, and accessing coal and other energy resources)... but stagnates as soon as growth becomes dependant on technology. The Soviet Union tracked with the US through the 40s and 50s, but once the USSR had maxxed out on resource exploitation it just stopped. The US kept refining technology, developed better plant and machinery, and left the USSR miles behind.
Frazzled wrote: What propaganda?
1. there will always be scarcity. Thats just physics. Duh.
There is nothing in physics about scarcity. Physics wouldn't even comment on the subject. That's just silly. What you are thinking of is unlimited wants, an economic theory that holds, for now, given our current relationship with material goods as a source of utility and (perhaps more importantly in the developed world) as a source of social status.
The point being that as material wealth increases the utility of better products continues to decline, and inevitably declines to the point where better goods just aren't that much better... and as material goods become less scarce then the status of owning them diminishes as well (remember when it was impressive that someone had a mobile phone, well who gives a gak who's got a Samsung Galaxy now?)
And if that happens, well then the whole capitalist system stops making sense. Now, maybe that will happen some where down the line. It's real sci fi stuff. But to just declare that capitalism is forever (when we've only had it a coupel of hundred years) is just silly.
C) to achieve it, it requires massive, unyielding dictatorship and intrusion in all aspects of life.
Communism doesn't require a massive, unyielding dictatorship. That one has come with every communist system says a lot about how unpopular the system is to people, but plain fact is if people wanted it, it'd be no more oppressive than anything else.
D) once the dictactorship gets power, it never gives up power.
THe USSR gave up power. For Christ's sake, just enough already. Stop making stuff up in your head.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ExNoctemNacimur wrote: The world, at the moment, is massively overpopulated (in my view anyway, have you tried getting through Dubai Mall on a Friday afternoon?). As a result, there's great competition to gain resources among people and countries. This is demonstrated by the world's inequality.
fething seriously, I'm not saying this because I like typing the word - communism does not attempt absolute equality. Dear Party Leader gets more than his secretary. Doctors get more than labourers.
There remains competition and reward for greater skill and greater effort.
All the system lacks, compared to capitalism, is markets and the profit motive.
No amount of technology will prevent scarcity, especially now, where there are billions of people in the world who have the greed of Mr Smith.
Now, sure. 1,000 years from now, with tech that can capture energy straight from the sun, and replicators that can transform that into whatever we want, not so much.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kovnik Obama wrote: Should have said 'stronger' economical structure. The sheer size of the US, it's infrastructure and it's bargaining power probably allows it a much greater resistance to things like famine. A communist country could have the same developped infrastructure, the same bargaining power (given that it doesn't isolate itself completely) and the same size. None of these things run against the tenets of communism.
Did you read my post replying to your original comment on Cuban medical care? Because I pointed out in that that looking purely at medical care, when political oppression is intense... is a pretty screwy way of looking at things.
Did you read my post replying to your original comment on Cuban medical care? Because I pointed out in that that looking purely at medical care, when political oppression is intense... is a pretty screwy way of looking at things.
This is the first page I post on in this thread, and I do not see a reply from you directed at me... Am I missing something? My only reply on the subject was to point out that Cuba had a higher life expectancy then in the U.S. which, without pretending to be an expert, I imagine would be a good indicator as for the quality of healthcare they get.
The idea wasn't to balance out the fact that they have little political freedom with the fact that they have good healthcare (although that could be an argument, if health wasn't the only value looked at), but to counter the idea that people fleeing from the country means that they can't have that great of a healthcare. Cuba could have the best healthcare system in the world and still suck at keeping its people fed.
EDIT : That was Howard Tree Song you were replying to.
Kovnik Obama wrote: This is the first page I post on in this thread, and I do not see a reply from you directed at me... Am I missing something? My only reply on the subject was to point out that Cuba had a higher life expectancy then in the U.S. which,
Ah, mistake. I saw you responding to Byte, who was responding to Howard A Treesong, and mistakenly thought it was you and not Howard that made the original comment. My apologies.
without pretending to be an expert, I imagine would be a good indicator as for the quality of healthcare they get. The idea wasn't to balance out the fact that they have little political freedom with the fact that they have good healthcare (although that could be an argument, if health wasn't the only value looked at), but to counter the idea that people fleeing from the country means that they can't have that great of a healthcare. Cuba could have the best healthcare system in the world and still suck at keeping its people fed.
Its like pointing out that Mussolini made the trains run on time. Just the act of mentioning something quite minor like that in the scope of all the hardship inflicted on the people basically has to end up being wildly misleading.
EDIT : That was Howard Tree Song you were replying to.
d-usa wrote: Without restraints Capitalism can result in technological and economic stagnation as well though. You have to fix Capitalism for it to work.
I think it causes lots of exploitation if left unrestrained but capitalism by it's nature leads to a very competitive market restrained or not.
When there are no restraints and a company owns all the telephone lines and can control what you are allowed to plug into their lines, then a new company has a hard time building their own phone network next to yours just so they can sell a nicer phone than you.
When you become so big that nobody can ever compete with you, where is your incentive?
d-usa wrote: When there are no restraints and a company owns all the telephone lines and can control what you are allowed to plug into their lines, then a new company has a hard time building their own phone network next to yours just so they can sell a nicer phone than you.
I don't really see what the big deal is. I think it is a decent show with a strong cast, especially Joel McChale and Donald Glover. Sure it is stinks that Dan Harmon was forced out, and you can tell, but it still is fun to watch. And let's face it the women on the show are easy to look at.
Ahtman wrote: I don't really see what the big deal is. I think it is a decent show with a strong cast, especially Joel McChale and Donald Glover. Sure it is stinks that Dan Harmon was forced out, and you can tell, but it still is fun to watch. And let's face it the women on the show are easy to look at.
d-usa wrote: When there are no restraints and a company owns all the telephone lines and can control what you are allowed to plug into their lines, then a new company has a hard time building their own phone network next to yours just so they can sell a nicer phone than you.
Fair enough, makes sense to me.
Now I'm not saying that Communism is better than Capitalism, just that in their pure form both are wishful thinking .
d-usa wrote: When there are no restraints and a company owns all the telephone lines and can control what you are allowed to plug into their lines, then a new company has a hard time building their own phone network next to yours just so they can sell a nicer phone than you.
Fair enough, makes sense to me.
Now I'm not saying that Communism is better than Capitalism, just that in their pure form both are wishful thinking .
Dude, you don't need to tell me it's clear by your avatar and sig that you're a fascist.
d-usa wrote: Without restraints Capitalism can result in technological and economic stagnation as well though. You have to fix Capitalism for it to work.
Yes, but capitalism is fixable. You can put restraints on the markets to protect the weak and vulnerable, to limit monopoly and oligopolies, to reduce information assymetry and all the other problems... and still have something with the best parts of capitalism, just without the excesses.
But if you modify communism it still doesn't work. The Soviets attempted all kinds of modifications to the system and none of them ever improved things much. One of the most famous was the private lots they allowed, where collective farmers were allowed 10% of the land as private plots, where whatever was grown was owned by that farmer. Those private plots produced as much produce as the rest of the collectives combined.
Fundamentally, there's nothing you can do to modify communism so that it encourages innovation and technological development, and still be left with something called communism.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ahtman wrote: I don't really see what the big deal is. I think it is a decent show with a strong cast, especially Joel McChale and Donald Glover. Sure it is stinks that Dan Harmon was forced out, and you can tell, but it still is fun to watch. And let's face it the women on the show are easy to look at.
D) once the dictactorship gets power, it never gives up power.
THe USSR gave up power. For Christ's sake, just enough already. Stop making stuff up in your head.
The reason why the USSR gave up power is long and complicated.
Gorbachev, by the 90s, was not well liked by the party.
He refused to help the Eastern European governments, telling them that they'd have to listen to the people.
The Eastern European governments feel by 1989, leaving the USSR without its allies.
He liberalised some areas of the government, and allowed more press freedom.
This meant that people were not only aware of what was going on, people were aware that there was a better system outside their country.
But that wasn't new, the USSR had been playing cultural catch-up to the west earlier. For example, they released a version of Let It Be with Russian lyrics. Cool, eh?
But anyway.
The reforms of Gorbachev were not designed to weaken the USSR. They were designed to strengthen it and prevent a collapse. By allowing the setting up of private business, he hoped to modernise the economy. By liberalising the press, he hoped that people would be more content with the government as they would respond to the people's demands. Instead, it only served to weaken the government and result in a coup by government hardliners, which in turn was defeated by Yeltsin, which caused Gorbachev to lose support, which caused the collapse of the USSR.
There's more reasons, they're just a few.
So no, the USSR didn't choose to give up power.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ExNoctemNacimur wrote: The world, at the moment, is massively overpopulated (in my view anyway, have you tried getting through Dubai Mall on a Friday afternoon?). As a result, there's great competition to gain resources among people and countries. This is demonstrated by the world's inequality.
fething seriously, I'm not saying this because I like typing the word - communism does not attempt absolute equality. Dear Party Leader gets more than his secretary. Doctors get more than labourers.
There remains competition and reward for greater skill and greater effort.
All the system lacks, compared to capitalism, is markets and the profit motive.
Where did you get that idea?
Engels and Marx demanded in the Manisfesto is:
1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c.
You can see from these is that equality is demanded from point 2. Yeah, a doctor will get more than the labourer (in the short run that is) but according to the principles of Das Kapital, Marx's sequel, this won't be for long.
Communism ultimately promotes total equality between classes. The should be no leader. There should be no reason why someone will not work to the best of their ability. There should be wealth redistribution between classes.
No amount of technology will prevent scarcity, especially now, where there are billions of people in the world who have the greed of Mr Smith.
Now, sure. 1,000 years from now, with tech that can capture energy straight from the sun, and replicators that can transform that into whatever we want, not so much.
One thing I learnt in my science lessons (I'm currently at GCSE level, I'm taking Additional Science at the end of this year) is that you cannot create things from nothing.
You can't just magically make something appear without something else disappearing.
And sometimes when there is stuff somewhere, it's not practical to extract it.
Let's take Uranium. It literally is everywhere. If there're rocks (everywhere there are rocks) or bricks, then there will be uranium.
Why doesn't Iran start extracting it from their mountains? Why don't they start levelling their mountains to get some uranium to prove that it's a big boy? One reason is that it's not economical to extract the tiny, tiny bits of uranium from the rocks.
So there may be an abundance of a lot of things. But will it be practical to extract it all? Will it be practical to send explorers to Venus to mine their Venus rocks? Or to Ceres to mine Ceresian rocks? Unless people actually live on Venus or Ceres, I doubt it. And that doesn't really solve the scarcity issue either because you've got burgeoning populations on new areas that are using resources that may have been used for Earth.
There will always be scarcity. No sci-fi mumbo-jumbo is ever going to change that. Evolution is based on scarcity (Mesozoic economics, woo-hoo!). There isn't enough food for everything in the area, so the animals with less advantageous characteristics die. It will always happen.
THe USSR gave up power. For Christ's sake, just enough already. Stop making stuff up in your head.
1. You missed a couple of attempted coups there Finklestein, or did you forget those nice scenes with Yeltsin surrounded by tanks and wearing a bullet proof vest.
2. In the end the communists didn't give up power. They became billionaire oligarchs
Sturmtruppen wrote: A concept tarnished by those who have claimed to be working towards its ends, or evil in its purest form? What do the people of Dakka Dakka think?
From the OP's sig and avatar, I cannot take this thread seriously
ExNoctemNacimur wrote: Yes, but things that are thrown out have a tendency to get thrown in a landfill. Who wants to open up a landfill, climb in there and collect the plastic?
Wait until the price of petroleum gets high enough. Someone will start mining landfills for discared petrochemicals like plastics, because it's cheaper than buying petroleum.
ExNoctemNacimur wrote: Yes, but things that are thrown out have a tendency to get thrown in a landfill. Who wants to open up a landfill, climb in there and collect the plastic?
Wait until the price of petroleum gets high enough. Someone will start mining landfills for discared petrochemicals like plastics, because it's cheaper than buying petroleum.
Again why? If everyone gets paid the same why would they do that?
ExNoctemNacimur wrote: Yes, but things that are thrown out have a tendency to get thrown in a landfill. Who wants to open up a landfill, climb in there and collect the plastic?
Wait until the price of petroleum gets high enough. Someone will start mining landfills for discared petrochemicals like plastics, because it's cheaper than buying petroleum.
Again why? If everyone gets paid the same why would they do that?
Because I was refering to our reality, not some theoretical one where everyone gets paid the same regardless. Even in Soviet Russia, some people got paid more than others.
d-usa wrote: And capitalism turns to passive letting people die unless they pay. It can go both ways.
Again, not saying communism is the answer. Just saying that pure unregulated capitalism isn't the answer either.
Yes, and I just explained that while regulated capitalism is a thing that exists and functions fairly well, regulated communism is quite the failure.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ExNoctemNacimur wrote: The reforms of Gorbachev were not designed to weaken the USSR. They were designed to strengthen it and prevent a collapse. By allowing the setting up of private business, he hoped to modernise the economy. By liberalising the press, he hoped that people would be more content with the government as they would respond to the people's demands. Instead, it only served to weaken the government and result in a coup by government hardliners, which in turn was defeated by Yeltsin, which caused Gorbachev to lose support, which caused the collapse of the USSR.
Yes, the reasons for which power was given up are long and complicated... but that doesn't mean power wasn't given up.
So no, the USSR didn't choose to give up power.
Giving up power is what liberalisation is.
And while you can argue that political and economic forces drove their decision making (and I'd agree) it's completely nutbar to pretend there weren't other options. They could have reversed their reforms, and re-instated political oppression and economic control (after all, they'd done that before). Maybe that might have re-secured power, or maybe they'd have gone down in drowned in blood and the vengeance of the common folk. But they didn't, instead they chose more open-ness and greater liberalisation.
They did this because there was, according to direct statements by many prominent persons, a broad recognition that the communist experiment had failed.
You can see from these is that equality is demanded from point 2. Yeah, a doctor will get more than the labourer (in the short run that is) but according to the principles of Das Kapital, Marx's sequel, this won't be for long.
Marx's sequel? Sequel? Have you actually read these books? It's not Communist Manifesto 2, Rise of the Das Kapital. He had about a dozen publications between the two, and they're massively different works, in scope, in size and in intent.
But more seriously, you're confusing equality of pay with equality of class. If your neighbour makes 10% more pay than you do, we're still equal in class.
And it is a big, big mistake to confuse Marx' writings with what communism meant in any country it was attempted. The guy has been dead 130 years, and was dead more than 30 years by the time of the November Revolution. The world has experienced a hell of a lot he was never privy to. I mean, it'd be as silly as quoting Smith's The Wealth of Nations as the absolute truth of what capitalism is.
Communism ultimately promotes total equality between classes. The should be no leader. There should be no reason why someone will not work to the best of their ability. There should be wealth redistribution between classes.
Yes, sure, but none of that means you can't pay a doctor more than a farm labourer. Communism is idealistic, but it isn't stupid.
There will always be scarcity. No sci-fi mumbo-jumbo is ever going to change that. Evolution is based on scarcity (Mesozoic economics, woo-hoo!). There isn't enough food for everything in the area, so the animals with less advantageous characteristics die. It will always happen.
Once again, because repeating myself seems to be what this thread is here for... this has nothing to do with the idea that despite the vast supply of energy released by the sun every second it is still finite, but with the idea that the economic assumption of infinite wants likely only works when specific economic and social effects are in place. The mistake you are making is to assume that the economy you've grown up with is the economy humanity will always have, while the most basic reading of economic history will tell you that is complete claptrap. In the last few thousand years the economy has changed entirely at least three times, and the scope of change is increasing. There's no reason not to think that at some point in the next 1,000 or 10,000 years our basic economic behaviour will be completely different once again.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: 1. You missed a couple of attempted coups there Finklestein, or did you forget those nice scenes with Yeltsin surrounded by tanks and wearing a bullet proof vest.
2. In the end the communists didn't give up power. They became billionaire oligarchs
Yeah, there was an attempted coup. Which, as we know, failed, and it failed because most of the government was not behind it. At which point we're looking at you trying to claim that the Soviets didn't give up power because a small minority tried to stop the process of giving up power and failed because they were a minority. Which is stupid.
But more importantly, when you have a totalitarian regime, and that regime chooses to undergo reform to become a democracy, the old regime has given up power. By fething definition that's just how it fething is. That the old guard managed to leverage their connections in the old system into private wealth in the new system doesn't change the fact that they don't have the absolute power over the country they used to have... and that's because they gave up that power.
I mean, from the depths of the bowels of Christ, it really can't be more fething obvious. Consider your country, right now, which has a lot of rich people running it (both in and out of government). If those people announced tomorrow that there weren't going to be elections anymore and they were just going to run things without any input from the population at large, you wouldn't be sitting there saying 'oh but they were the rich ones anyway so they haven't given up any power'... because that'd be crazy ass nonsense.
And yet swap that around, and you're trying to claim that bringing in democracy doesn't count as the surrender of power because the old elite scored loads of cash. I mean, fething hell... you're a grown man. Do better.
@Sebster: saying that you can fix capitalism and not fix communism doesn't matter. It still means that capitalism doesn't work since you have to make it "not-pure-capitalism" for it to actually be workable.
d-usa wrote: @Sebster: saying that you can fix capitalism and not fix communism doesn't matter. It still means that capitalism doesn't work since you have to make it "not-pure-capitalism" for it to actually be workable.
The 'purity' of things means half of nothing in the real world. 'Can this be made to work?' is a real and meaningful question.
With capitalism, we tinkered with it and found we got it working fairly well. With communism... no such luck, the problem is fundamental, and the only way to fix it is to make it into something that isn't communism.
Sebster , since you make quite good arguments and seem to get fired up about commmunism i have a question.
Do you think the best antidote for despotism/communism ( democratic peoples republic) is the exposure to markets?
I know North Korea isn't a communist structure strictly, but seems to share a few characteristics with certain eastern european states under the USSR. I've been thinking about it and i think the best solution for north Korea atm is to drop all sanctions and open up the markets of the world to them. Do you think that that would be effective in generating leadership changes?
Bullockist wrote: Sebster , since you make quite good arguments and seem to get fired up about commmunism i have a question.
I know I've been pretty heated in this thread, and it probably isn't a good thing, but honestly it isn't communism. What actually gets me going is people thinking forums are just places where they log on to skim past all the other posts so they can tell everyone the one thing they learned about the subject years ago, probably in highschool. With communism it'll be one of a few things, 'communism doesn't work because people are selfish' or 'there's never been a real communist nation'.
Honestly, you should see me when people try to talk about how America defeated the Nazis in WWII, I'm twice as bad
Do you think the best antidote for despotism/communism ( democratic peoples republic) is the exposure to markets?
I know North Korea isn't a communist structure strictly, but seems to share a few characteristics with certain eastern european states under the USSR. I've been thinking about it and i think the best solution for north Korea atm is to drop all sanctions and open up the markets of the world to them. Do you think that that would be effective in generating leadership changes?
There's an interesting theory called the J curve, that argues just that. It makes that countries can be very stable because they are open (both to the rest of the world and also to their own people), other countries are quite stable because they are almost entirely closed. In between you have the maximum level of instability.
I think it's a pretty powerful theory and one worth embracing in a lot of situations. It'd certainly be a much better solution to the Cuba problem than the current US trade ban. In other cases, I'm not so sure - with Iran for example, the current model of conditional trade seems a fairly effective way of being able to punish them for doing stupid things (like chasing nukes), but push that too far and the cosmopolitan, educated core that's needed to drive progressive reform will like disappear.
Interesting read, on the subject of irans nukes , i think they should have one, it might stop countries being so belligerent towards them.
If Pakistan and India can have nukes (two states engaged in hostile behavior almost continiously) , I don't see why Iran can't. I think Iran is close to large scale change atm, and i don't think being aggressive towards them is helping this change. In effect it's doing more harm than good since the nationalistic government is given an enemy which they use to "unite the people". Without an external enemy they would probably invent an internal enemy though .
Personally, i think Iran is blown all out of proportion as an "evil state" or whatever they get called. They have had a very raw deal in regard to western countries in the past and i think they have a right to be angry, continually trying to bully them, is not helping the situation.
The whole situation Iran is involved in makes me uneasy. Threatening them continuously, invading their airspace with drones , assassinating people does nothing but make them hostile. Worse, having them under economic sanctions hurts the common people and makes them hostile as well.
Bullockist wrote: Interesting read, on the subject of irans nukes , i think they should have one, it might stop countries being so belligerent towards them.
If Pakistan and India can have nukes (two states engaged in hostile behavior almost continiously) , I don't see why Iran can't. I think Iran is close to large scale change atm, and i don't think being aggressive towards them is helping this change. In effect it's doing more harm than good since the nationalistic government is given an enemy which they use to "unite the people". Without an external enemy they would probably invent an internal enemy though .
Personally, i think Iran is blown all out of proportion as an "evil state" or whatever they get called. They have had a very raw deal in regard to western countries in the past and i think they have a right to be angry, continually trying to bully them, is not helping the situation.
The whole situation Iran is involved in makes me uneasy. Threatening them continuously, invading their airspace with drones , assassinating people does nothing but make them hostile. Worse, having them under economic sanctions hurts the common people and makes them hostile as well.
Who's belligerent towards Iran? What the hell are you smoking?
Bullockist wrote: Interesting read, on the subject of irans nukes , i think they should have one, it might stop countries being so belligerent towards them.
If Pakistan and India can have nukes (two states engaged in hostile behavior almost continiously) , I don't see why Iran can't. I think Iran is close to large scale change atm, and i don't think being aggressive towards them is helping this change. In effect it's doing more harm than good since the nationalistic government is given an enemy which they use to "unite the people". Without an external enemy they would probably invent an internal enemy though .
Personally, i think Iran is blown all out of proportion as an "evil state" or whatever they get called. They have had a very raw deal in regard to western countries in the past and i think they have a right to be angry, continually trying to bully them, is not helping the situation.
The whole situation Iran is involved in makes me uneasy. Threatening them continuously, invading their airspace with drones , assassinating people does nothing but make them hostile. Worse, having them under economic sanctions hurts the common people and makes them hostile as well.
You are making me agree with Frazzled, I don't like it when people make me agree with Frazzled since everybody knows that Cats rule and Dogs drool, but WTH are you talking about? Iran is currently the nr.1 sponsor of international terrorism and you are complaining that people are belligerent TOWARDS them?!
It seems to me they are sponsoring militias in countries around them. Is this much different to a certain country installing and supporting juntas in south american countries , causing revolutions to happen in others? Personally i think those actions are reprehensable but , if it's ok for one country to do it you surely cannot villify another for doing the same.
Just because one set of actions are labelled terrorist does not make the results any different to the actions of another that aren't, I'd like all of these kind of actions to stop, whilst they aren't stopped I'd just like the actions to be viewed on equal footing. In international politics there are no goodies and baddies just countries trying to influence others (normally to the detriment of the said others).
and frazzled violating someone elses airspace is belligerant, you cannot get much more threatening in behavior toward another country. Holding military exersizes in waters right next to a countries waters is also aggressive. If these kind of things happened over florida or in the bay of mexico (respectively) how would the US react?
Also the language used by the US in diplomatic press releases (you know the ones where the foreign secretary reads a speech) is exceedingly threatening and bombastic, I don't know they know any other way other than gunboat diplomacy. Perhaps you should watch these speeches again and look at them as though they are given to your country. They seems to mainly end up as "do what we say or we will thump you". That is not diplomatic, nor is it diplomacy. Personally everytime i hear one of these i think "why are they trying to drag us into another war".
Bullockist wrote: and frazzled violating someone elses airspace is belligerant, you cannot get much more threatening in behavior toward another country. Holding military exersizes in waters right next to a countries waters is also aggressive. If these kind of things happened over florida or in the bay of mexico (respectively) how would the US react?
We don't violate their airspace. You cannot get more threatening - how about threatenting to nuke Israel, nuke us, kidnap our hostages, send military arms to the guys killing our troops, supporting terrorists around the world etc. etc. etc.
Military exercises occur all the time. The Bay of Mexico? Are you talking about the Gulf of Mexico? There were Soviet exercises there in the past. Cuba is there. Iran said it would put ships there - since none appeared evidently they all sank on the way.
Bullockist wrote: Sending drones into another countries airspace is violating their airspace.
Please provide proof they’ve intentionally sent drones into Iranian airspace. Then we can play with the stories noting Iranian arms and captured Iranian fighters in Iraq. Also Iran’s kidnapping of US hikers on the border. We used to blow countries to hell for that. Still should.
Was it considered threatening when russia did exersizes with cuba? I'm assuming they were in the cold war.
Don’t know about Russia. USSR exercises were time honored Cold War tradition.
You can have some of what I'm smoking only if i can swap you for your simplistic world view.
Strangely most of the world disagrees with you. ..
First the hikers. U.S. private citizens go hiking in a war torn country in what i assume was a "red zone" it certainly wasn't a "green zone", I'd like to believe it was just for sight seeing :/. Who gave them clearance and what for the love of god were they doing there?
Russia, USSR, you know i meant USSR frazzled. If the bay of pigs was considered threatening, surely having a few air craft carriers and supporting fleet doing exersises right next door to your country is considered threatening.
Bullockist wrote: First the hikers. U.S. private citizens go hiking in a war torn country in what i assume was a "red zone" it certainly wasn't a "green zone", I'd like to believe it was just for sight seeing :/. Who gave them clearance and what for the love of god were they doing there?
Irrelevant. They are still US citizens. Should have bombed Tehran every day with B-52s until they were released.
Now I see you're not discussing the Iranian arms going into Iraq to kill US and UK troops, the Iranian advisors from the Republican Guard who went as well, Iran's support for Hamas and Hezzbullah, and cheerful statements about wiping other countries off the map.
Russia, USSR, you know i meant USSR frazzled. If the bay of pigs was considered threatening, surely having a few air craft carriers and supporting fleet doing exersises right next door to your country is considered threatening.
Now you're just revealing ignorance. Bay of Pigs was not a military exercise. AND IT WAS A US BACKED EVENT.
Please, read a god damned book.
I have read many books, in fact i read 1-2 a week,of many types and have a very wide range of interests. History, religious books, fiction of most kinds, autobiographies (interestingly richards nixons book on post war leaders is good) , but I don't read technical manuals. I don't agree with everything i read but it's all good to know . I've even slogged through a few feminist books in my time (some of them are good , others are just ridiculous) , once resulting in a 16 year old boy pointing at the book and saying "gay" (i think the book was called "the backlash against women" and to his mind was not something a man should be reading) anyways enough about me.
I view the bay of pigs as leading directly to the cuban missile crisis so I tend to lump them into the one event even though they were a few months apart.
cheerful statements about wiping countries off the map are reprehensible but unfortunately if a right wing govt is starting to lose power it is the type of tactic they resort to keep control. It is threatening behavior.
Hamas was created to get an occupying force out of thier country which is still there. Let's not forget israel occupied palestinian territory. Hezbullah was created to try and get israel out of lebanon after their occupation of part of lebanon. One mans freedom fighter is another mans terrorist. I don't know about you but if another country occupied mine, I'd be signing up for a similar group. Though saying that i do not excuse all of their actions, nor even most of their actions, I also cannot justify israels occupation.
Quite simply, occupy another country and similar organisations will spring up.
Iran and Israel have a terrible relationship so although i don't agree with, i can understand their support of those 2 organisations.
The thing is frazzled the US has done ALL of these activities in the past, arms and support in afganistan,kidnapping people , advisors to vietnam, and instead of cheerful statements have nuked countries.
All I'm saying is not what the US does is bad (except their diplomacy) I also am not saying what Iran does is good.
Having an idea that A is bad and B is good is nonsensical. Everyone in international politics does vile things. What worries me most about the US is their seemingly endless need to go to war. Just finishing up in afganistan and iraq, and looking prospectively at north Korea and Iran (wonder if we'll go looking for WMD again) whilst beginning to rattle the sabre at Syria.
On a purely logical level a broke country does not need another war, then again i suppose without communists anymore the US needs an external enemy.
Communism depends on the persons definition of communism. Some people like me completely agree with Marx and to a certain extent with Lenin, however i am the polar opposite of Stalin and Gorbachov.
In addition communism can only work in practice, right now. However it is an inevitablity, the banking crisis has shown us this. But i can see why people dislike the idea, because they automatically think of a dictatorship, when in actuall fact a communist dictatorship is a controdiction in itself.
Long story short, some people like me agree, some people disagree, in the end we currently live good lives compared to others in other places so lets be thankful for what we have and try to improve the lives of others.
Frazzled wrote: What if we'd rather just have their stuff too?
I understand that you'r probebly not speaking to me, and double apologies if i misunderstand you, but you just can't take someones stuff, that's stealing.
Frazzled wrote: What if we'd rather just have their stuff too?
I understand that you'r probebly not speaking to me, and double apologies if i misunderstand you, but you just can't take someones stuff, that's stealing.
But if the government sanctions it... then it's legal!
Frazzled wrote: What if we'd rather just have their stuff too?
I understand that you'r probebly not speaking to me, and double apologies if i misunderstand you, but you just can't take someones stuff, that's stealing.
But what if I really really wants it for reals, and I have a flamethrower, or just a really pissed off wiener dog?
Frazzled wrote: What if we'd rather just have their stuff too?
I understand that you'r probebly not speaking to me, and double apologies if i misunderstand you, but you just can't take someones stuff, that's stealing.
But what if I really really wants it for reals, and I have a flamethrower, or just a really pissed off wiener dog?
I suggest you call them a pariah first frazzled that way less people will care.
Frazzled wrote: What if we'd rather just have their stuff too?
I understand that you'r probebly not speaking to me, and double apologies if i misunderstand you, but you just can't take someones stuff, that's stealing.
Bullockist wrote: Interesting read, on the subject of irans nukes , i think they should have one, it might stop countries being so belligerent towards them.
If Pakistan and India can have nukes (two states engaged in hostile behavior almost continiously) , I don't see why Iran can't.
Basically it isn't good when anyone gets the bomb. More countries with the bomb means more chance of one them eventually being used to blow up a city, and that's doubly so when it's an unstable regime, like Pakistan or Iran. Now, Pakistan has the bomb and there's not much we can do about it now, but there's still plenty of scope to stop Iran chasing it.
(I think Iran is close to large scale change atm, and i don't think being aggressive towards them is helping this change. In effect it's doing more harm than good since the nationalistic government is given an enemy which they use to "unite the people". Without an external enemy they would probably invent an internal enemy though .
There's plenty of outrage within Iran that they're hurting the economy in order to chase the bomb. Our policies cut both ways.
Personally, i think Iran is blown all out of proportion as an "evil state" or whatever they get called. They have had a very raw deal in regard to western countries in the past and i think they have a right to be angry, continually trying to bully them, is not helping the situation.
I think the anti-Iran rhetoric is overblown (and just plain comic in a lot of places, especially here on Dakka), but there's no doubting the government is not a good one.
I do agree that Iran's hostility to West is easily explained in recent history. I mean, overthrow someone's democratic government to put in your chosen Shah... and then act surprised when they don't like you? Bizarre. But I don't think any of that means we should pretend that Iran's government is a good or stable one.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: Please provide proof they’ve intentionally sent drones into Iranian airspace.
Are you gaking me? fething seriously?
RQ-170. It wasn't a small thing. Iran claimed the brought it down with a cyber attack but it probably just developed a malfunction and crashed. Whatever happened, they were so proud of it that they ran a whole bunch of toy versions (including pink ones for girls, my friend managed to get her hands on one, it's awesome).
Anyway, stop building opinions on what you assume might be true. Knowing stuff actually matters. Being ignorant of US drone activity in Iran, then get all huffy about the subject makes no sense.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: Irrelevant. They are still US citizens. Should have bombed Tehran every day with B-52s until they were released.
When citizens of a foreign country that is hostile to your own are found travelling in your country without visas... you're supposed to take them in and ask them what the hell they were doing.
The idea that that course of action would lead straight to bombing runs on civilian centres is absolutely, 100% moonbat crazy. Bonkers.
I mean, I am really honestly thinking Dakka needs to have a special day set aside each year where we all give thanks that Fraz is not, and will never be President.
Frazzled wrote: What if we'd rather just have their stuff too?
I understand that you'r probebly not speaking to me, and double apologies if i misunderstand you, but you just can't take someones stuff, that's stealing.
To know me is to love me, or die a horrible death in a pit of ravenous badger dogs!
To the topic and to those espousing how communism will free us all. Answer the eternal question - how does a communist state move from its required dictatorship to reorganize society, to its final end state?
To know me is to love me, or die a horrible death in a pit of ravenous badger dogs!
To the topic and to those espousing how communism will free us all. Answer the eternal question - how does a communist state move from its required dictatorship to reorganize society, to its final end state?
Ok this is how i would attempt to achieve this.
By obeying the MAJORITY of the people, not the POWERFUL people in society.
I'll ask again. How would a communist state, by necessity a dictatorship, ever move beyond the dictatorship.
AKA whats going to make it do that? Whats going to make the party apparatchuks and the army give up power?
A communist dictatorship is a controdiction, it is impossible to have a communist dictatorship, how can an ideaology were everyone is equal have a dictator?
I'll ask again. How would a communist state, by necessity a dictatorship, ever move beyond the dictatorship.
AKA whats going to make it do that? Whats going to make the party apparatchuks and the army give up power?
A communist dictatorship is a controdiction, it is impossible to have a communist dictatorship, how can an ideaology were everyone is equal have a dictator?
Communism is technicly Utopia.
So let me rephrase the question, how do you propose moving from the dictatorship that folks calling themselves communists set up into the true Utopia Communism?
I'll ask again. How would a communist state, by necessity a dictatorship, ever move beyond the dictatorship.
AKA whats going to make it do that? Whats going to make the party apparatchuks and the army give up power?
A communist dictatorship is a controdiction, it is impossible to have a communist dictatorship, how can an ideaology were everyone is equal have a dictator?
Communism is technicly Utopia.
OK we'll keep asking the question until someone answers it or admits it can't be done.
The People's Republic of Assholistan is formed after the 14th revolution. Folowing Marx it installs a centralized government to reorganize society, and manage the means of production.
How does The People's Republic of Assholistan realistically move from banana republic to worker's paradise taking into account human nature.
I should be clear (if not before) that, although I am laughing at the concept of communism on earth, itsw utopianism is something that would be heavenly (and reserved for such a place).
So, in other words, it won't work here because people suck. In "another place" it might be just fine...
(this was also a GC favorite when she was about five. Mine too! ).
Therin lies the rub. Communism as a theory is a beautiful thing, but like any system, when you introduce the human element, you introduce problems. Humans are corrupt, greedy, ambitious, and stupid, and we generally mess up everything we touch. Democracy as a theory is also beautiful, but as you can see by a lot of western countries at the minute, a lot of the politicians involved are corrupt, and not in it for the privilege of serving their country. They are in it for money and power.
I genuinely think we'll be going in circles until the computers are smart enough to take over and look after us. Think iain m. Banks' culture novels.
When weiner dogs form packs in the wild, the heirarchy much resembles a comunist dictatorship. Then after the great FRazzled has passed over ,a weiner utopia is formed, with free kibble falling from the sky!
Keep your wienie away from me you perv or i'm telling the Mods you're sexually harassing me! If that doesn't work I'll tell melissa and she will feminist you into the ground.
They are brilliant in my opinion. A good start would be either consider phlebas, player of games, or excession. My personal fave is excession. It's a slow burner, but the last couple of chapters are pretty cool.
Frazz... you're on a roll. "The People's Republic of Assholistan"... so stealing that dude!
I think that technology needs to be way more advanced (think Star Trek) where the basic necessity are easily provided and resource scarcity is minimized before Communism, pick-your-flava-ism, Utopia can be achieved.
I'll ask again. How would a communist state, by necessity a dictatorship, ever move beyond the dictatorship.
AKA whats going to make it do that? Whats going to make the party apparatchiks and the army give up power?
A communist dictatorship is a contradiction, it is impossible to have a communist dictatorship, how can an ideology were everyone is equal have a dictator?
Communism is technically Utopia.
Correct you are the first person who I have talked at who has made this key point.
Communism fails because a beautiful wonderful ideal cannot be carried out by the people this is why even though capitalism has flaws it is the best system we have available to us.
Communism; wonderful idea on paper, never really works in reality. It sort of requires massive amounts of dedication from everyone involved. The moment you have one person who's not working his all for the community and trying to coast by, the model breaks.
I'll ask again. How would a communist state, by necessity a dictatorship, ever move beyond the dictatorship.
AKA whats going to make it do that? Whats going to make the party apparatchuks and the army give up power?
you are making the false assumption that democracy is unmutual to communism. The trick is that a communist system can only function under consensus. You assume that democracy is intrinsically linked to a free market system, which the two together, are diametrically opposed to communism. This is the misconception that pisses me off the most, not because I'm so fething sick of hearing it from "right-wingers" that dictatorship is intrinsically linked to communism. Further, what kind of "democracy" do you live in, where the political system is dominated by two parties which both lie to the public, betray the platform they stand on, and both make miserable decisions when in power? Don't worry, I'm not the pot calling the kettle black: I refuse to acknowledge any difference between the conservatives and the liberals, because the only thing they have done is piss at eachother without actually standing apart on any issue other than a half assed attempt at making it look like they were solving health care problems (by either dedicating more resources, or cutting more funding) or making a half assed attempt at reorganizing the military (by buying hardware that really isn't needed, or paying for garbage that needs to be decommissioned while trying to maintain hundreds of other pieces of equipment that ought have been decommissioned as well...). I don't bother mentioning canada's other political parties, because the green party is a joke and wasted effort, because every vote thrown away there is one that could have been used giving the equally hillarious but stronger NDP party a seat. (personally, i still can't understand how a non-majority of people can vote in such a way that a political party achieves a majority in light of the fact that more people voted for a different political party... but..... okay.... "democracy" at work there I guess...)
my rant aside, to respond to OP
Now any rational discourse on communism will acknowledge these things first: 1.) marxist communism has been tried numerous times, and died, soaked in gasoline, set ablaze and hit with a tactical nuclear genocide before it even got off the ground. The marxist model is a great thought experiment, a wonderful study, but fundamentally flawed. 2.) bakuninian anarchy, which is actually communism, is actually a much better concept, and it's refinement is libertarianism. Not liberalism. Liberalism is a crappy crapsack of crap filled with crap, that has more interest in creating BS policies of creating artificial equalities to the point where it inevitably becomes criminal to be white, but, I digress... 3.) no self-respecting communist will admit that communists have a political agenda to work for until contemporary communists first work out the details of what it is they actually want, codify a new system, and give it a try. Since this is never going to happen because everyone is still in a pissing contest over what marx meant, the most we get is meaningful moral discussion and PhD. topics. 4.) there is only such a thing as equal pay for equal work. If equal pay for all work were true, I would love to have newton's laws of physics apply, and claim that my sitting in a bathroom with a few magazines all day constitutes work.... as the above 4 have not happened, and never will happen even in an academic setting, no rational discourse on communism can ever be had.
Currency can never be abolished, and although we will inevitably reach a point in the future (assuming we don't of course go out in a fantastic self-induced old-fashioned-like-grandma-used-to-make-nuclear-genocide) only the barest minimums ought be free: a cubicle to live in, the required calories to not starve, hydration, sanitation, health care, 1 pair of pants, 7 pairs of underwear and education. Soviets also had to deal with laziness, and they had a brilliant solution: Jail. And food was only initially provided, eventually, if you didn't get off your ass and grow it yourself, you weren't going to eat.Beyond that, since lazyness will abound, there are luxury items and wealth and income and all these things that must exist as motivation, because fundamentally, people are self interested. Even the people that do things to improve the lot of others at personal expense, do it because they are selfish and want to feel good about themselves--these people are after all motivated for some reason in their "selfless" act.
While being pro communist, and annoyed by the ignorant arguments from the right about democracy and dictatorships, I'm actually more pissed off at pro-communists for consistently turning to the teachings of the classic heroes and supporting everything written in Marx's manifesto without exhibiting half an iota of cognitive capacity or understanding the era we are living in and the disparity of social and political problems we deal with. It would be nice if communists could get off of their lazy academic asses, and actually formulate something achievable rather than engaging in verbal pissing contests, amusing though they may be.
While I'm pro commie, I admit I'd rather see everything set to fire rather than see another "people's hero" come around, and I fear that my lack of advancement in badger hound weaponization and long-range deployment may put me at a severe disadvantage when it comes down carving out my own fiefdom from the flanks of that failed attempt, but, fraz, if you need any barons, sign me up!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
TermiesInARaider wrote: Communism; wonderful idea on paper, never really works in reality. It sort of requires massive amounts of dedication from everyone involved. The moment you have one person who's not working his all for the community and trying to coast by, the model breaks.
It's called a prison. Except, this particular prison is shaped like a farm. Person either works or starves, so..... this argument doesn't exactly work for proving that communism doesn't work.
Eggs wrote: Communism as a theory is a beautiful thing, but like any system, when you introduce the human element, you introduce problems.
Eh, if your theory can't survive contact with reality then its a pretty ugly theory.
Of course, this only really applies to the lay understanding of communism, there are plenty of more complicated takes on that particular collection ideas. And, as I said way up-thread, many of them ape (to a certain degree) the circumstances of the present day West; which was influenced by communism whether or not certain Americans like to admit it.
poda_t wrote: Not liberalism. Liberalism is a crappy crapsack of crap filled with crap, that has more interest in creating BS policies of creating artificial equalities to the point where it inevitably becomes criminal to be white, but, I digress...
Wut? The liberal notion of equality is minimal, it does not prescribe any action to the government. Liberalism is about the State's neutrality, the citizen's freedom, and equality in regard to the law, all in respect with the moral pluralism that caracterise our modern societies.
Do not mistake liberalism with what people that get called liberals do, it's not the same thing.
Asherian Command wrote: I don't know comrade, I find it a party and fantastic leaders, where every one is the same.
/sarcasm
In all honesty Communism is the perfect form of government, but ever since we are human we screw it up, if we weren't human the system would work, there have been no pure communistic systems. So ever since it cannot be performed correctly it is a bad form of government as our frame of minds would not be able to complete it correctly.
i used to have a shirt that read (like mc donalds but about communism) "the party is over"
So let me rephrase the question, how do you propose moving from the dictatorship that folks calling themselves communists set up into the true Utopia Communism?
Utopia is an interesting term, as all those based on value are. If you can eliminate all moneyed opposition, shut off contact with the outside world, and create some form of ethic which entails the superiority of your nation*; then you can pretty easily create a (lay) communist utopia. Everyone will have everything they ever want, because most will not want anything other than what the powers that be say is good.
Interestingly, certain Marxist authors (Marcuse) have criticized capitalism on similar grounds.
*Let us not forget "American Exceptionalism" before we start admonishing communist states for such behavior.
poda_t wrote: Not liberalism. Liberalism is a crappy crapsack of crap filled with crap, that has more interest in creating BS policies of creating artificial equalities to the point where it inevitably becomes criminal to be white, but, I digress...
Wut? The liberal notion of equality is minimal, it does not prescribe any action to the government. Liberalism is about the State's neutrality, the citizen's freedom, and equality in regard to the law, all in respect with the moral pluralism that caracterise our modern societies.
Do not mistake liberalism with what people that get called liberals do, it's not the same thing.
classically, maybe. Classically, democracy was not principled on an electoral system, and anyone that was a standing citizen could attend and vote on decisions. I can't walk into parliament to cast my votes... in fact i only vote once every 4 years on exactly what kind of criminal i want running my country, but that's another discussion.... yet we all understand that we are living in a democratic state.....
poda_t wrote: classically, maybe. Classically, democracy was not principled on an electoral system, and anyone that was a standing citizen could attend and vote on decisions. I can't walk into parliament to cast my votes... in fact i only vote once every 4 years on exactly what kind of criminal i want running my country, but that's another discussion.... yet we all understand that we are living in a democratic state.....
Classical liberalism is more specific (while at the same time being a term with multiple accepted uses) than what I refered to. Speaking of liberalism is often tricky because it's associated with a very large variety of different conceptions, but it does not refer to 'creating artificial equality to the point that being white is almost illegal' in any way.
Anyway, if your criticism boils down to 'well, that might have been the classical theory, but look at what it's at nowadays', then you've more than invalidated your own, ''pro-commie'' stance.
And wtf dude, you are canadian. I could have accepted this from an american, but not a fellow northerner.
poda_t wrote: Classically, democracy was not principled on an electoral system, and anyone that was a standing citizen could attend and vote on decisions.
True, but what constituted a citizen has varied over time.
poda_t wrote: classically, maybe. Classically, democracy was not principled on an electoral system, and anyone that was a standing citizen could attend and vote on decisions. I can't walk into parliament to cast my votes... in fact i only vote once every 4 years on exactly what kind of criminal i want running my country, but that's another discussion.... yet we all understand that we are living in a democratic state.....
Classical liberalism is more specific (while at the same time being a term with multiple accepted uses) than what I refered to. Speaking of liberalism is often tricky because it's associated with a very large variety of different conceptions, but it does not refer to 'creating artificial equality to the point that being white is almost illegal' in any way.
Anyway, if your criticism boils down to 'well, that might have been the classical theory, but look at what it's at nowadays', then you've more than invalidated your own, ''pro-commie'' stance.
And wtf dude, you are canadian. I could have accepted this from an american, but not a fellow northerner.
For the record. Liberals and Conservatives are both gakkers. for their entire existance they have been "me too me too", and only differed on whether to buy new guns from americans, or used guns from the british, and whether to cut overhead for healthcare, or add more overhead to healthcare..... the liberals are also the ones we can thank for the current disaster with quebec. Quebec wants out? Fine. Enjoy your short stint of nationalism, which is well on its way to being dead if the EU is anything to go by.
and no. My stance for communism is not invalid because i think the Liberal party is full of quacks.
I have to admit, poda, you might be mistaking the fundamental movement behind liberals. The clue's in the name; a liberal wants freedom, i.e. liberty in life and politics.
Although many are so overly involved in neutering opinions that might annoy somebody else, I admit, they aren't actually all about equality.
poda_t wrote: For the record. Liberals and Conservatives are both gakkers. for their entire existance they have been "me too me too", and only differed on whether to buy new guns from americans, or used guns from the british, and whether to cut overhead for healthcare, or add more overhead to healthcare..... the liberals are also the ones we can thank for the current disaster with quebec. Quebec wants out? Fine. Enjoy your short stint of nationalism, which is well on its way to being dead if the EU is anything to go by.
and no. My stance for communism is not invalid because i think the Liberal party is full of quacks.
Liberalism =/= the Liberal Party, just like Conservatism =/= the Conservative Party. Hell the Conservative Party is closer to Neoliberalism than anything else. Liberalism is a specific body of political doctrines. Because of the inherent pragmatical needs of political parties to respond to current events, they dont always (in fact they never do) abide entirely or even mostly to their own philosophical foundation.
I'm not sure what to do about that whole Québec bashing rant, honestly. I'm not sure what disaster you are refering to. Our provincial Liberal Party is neoliberal, much like the Conservative Party at the federal level. Or do you mean Trudeau's Liberals being at fault?
poda_t wrote: For the record. Liberals and Conservatives are both gakkers. for their entire existance they have been "me too me too", and only differed on whether to buy new guns from americans, or used guns from the british, and whether to cut overhead for healthcare, or add more overhead to healthcare..... the liberals are also the ones we can thank for the current disaster with quebec. Quebec wants out? Fine. Enjoy your short stint of nationalism, which is well on its way to being dead if the EU is anything to go by.
and no. My stance for communism is not invalid because i think the Liberal party is full of quacks.
Liberalism =/= the Liberal Party, just like Conservatism =/= the Conservative Party. Hell the Conservative Party is closer to Neoliberalism than anything else. Liberalism is a specific body of political doctrines. Because of the inherent pragmatical needs of political parties to respond to current events, they dont always (in fact they never do) abide entirely or even mostly to their own philosophical foundation.
I'm not sure what to do about that whole Québec bashing rant, honestly. I'm not sure what disaster you are refering to. Our provincial Liberal Party is neoliberal, much like the Conservative Party at the federal level. Or do you mean Trudeau's Liberals being at fault?
Can't say I follow you, honestly.
we can start with the , oh, at least $50 billion that Quebec received over the past 20 years that really should have gone to the maritime provinces or northern territories instead, or the snide arrogant attitude that Quebec has pertaining to the "lack" of culture in the west..... let's not even touch on the retrogressive isolationist politics that the province seems instant to follow, or the need to strangle to death what culture they have than let it grow and flourish. Then there's the racists and xenophobes the province is breeding... I can go all across Europe and speak English, and people are willing to help me, i can even go to eastern Europe, start speaking Russian, people won't bat an eye. But I go to Quebec, and I have more people gaking down my throat than English words I spoke, and words I only said to the people I was there with. Can't even talk to them in Hungarian either. Yeah. come to think of it, I really can't see the problem either.
poda_t wrote: we can start with the , oh, at least $50 billion that Quebec received over the past 20 years that really should have gone to the maritime provinces or northern territories instead, or the snide arrogant attitude that Quebec has pertaining to the "lack" of culture in the west..... let's not even touch on the retrogressive isolationist politics that the province seems instant to follow, or the need to strangle to death what culture they have than let it grow and flourish. Then there's the racists and xenophobes the province is breeding... I can go all across Europe and speak English, and people are willing to help me, i can even go to eastern Europe, start speaking Russian, people won't bat an eye. But I go to Quebec, and I have more people gaking down my throat than English words I spoke, and words I only said to the people I was there with. Can't even talk to them in Hungarian either. Yeah. come to think of it, I really can't see the problem either.
ಠ_ಠ
So, hum, what does any of this has to do with liberalism? Or are you just going out of your way to insult me?
poda_t wrote: we can start with the , oh, at least $50 billion that Quebec received over the past 20 years that really should have gone to the maritime provinces or northern territories instead, or the snide arrogant attitude that Quebec has pertaining to the "lack" of culture in the west..... let's not even touch on the retrogressive isolationist politics that the province seems instant to follow, or the need to strangle to death what culture they have than let it grow and flourish. Then there's the racists and xenophobes the province is breeding... I can go all across Europe and speak English, and people are willing to help me, i can even go to eastern Europe, start speaking Russian, people won't bat an eye. But I go to Quebec, and I have more people gaking down my throat than English words I spoke, and words I only said to the people I was there with. Can't even talk to them in Hungarian either. Yeah. come to think of it, I really can't see the problem either.
ಠ_ಠ
So, hum, what does any of this has to do with liberalism? Or are you just going out of your way to insult me?
that particular rant had nothing to do with liberalism, just a special place under my heel that I reserve for quebec and the antics that the politicians insist on going through, despite plenty of applicable examples across Europe and asia that following these kinds of policies is an incredibly unhealthy and retrogressive. Most of the world is embracing global integration, but quebec insists on "manifesting its own destiny" and achieving nationhood.... for what? Europe is a great example of everything that went wrong with the last batch of nationalism to sweep it by storm, and most of eaastern europe is still cleaning up from the ramifications of that bout of nationalism.
poda_t wrote: that particular rant had nothing to do with liberalism, just a special place under my heel that I reserve for quebec and the antics that the politicians insist on going through, despite plenty of applicable examples across Europe and asia that following these kinds of policies is an incredibly unhealthy and retrogressive. Most of the world is embracing global integration, but quebec insists on "manifesting its own destiny" and achieving nationhood.... for what? Europe is a great example of everything that went wrong with the last batch of nationalism to sweep it by storm, and most of eaastern europe is still cleaning up from the ramifications of that bout of nationalism.
You seem to love to throw 'nationalism' around. Ever tried communautarism? Interculturalism?
For someone who bitches so harshly about liberalism, you sure are playing their game.
I'll ask again. How would a communist state, by necessity a dictatorship, ever move beyond the dictatorship.
AKA whats going to make it do that? Whats going to make the party apparatchuks and the army give up power?
A communist dictatorship is a controdiction, it is impossible to have a communist dictatorship, how can an ideaology were everyone is equal have a dictator?
Communism is technicly Utopia.
OK we'll keep asking the question until someone answers it or admits it can't be done.
The People's Republic of Assholistan is formed after the 14th revolution. Folowing Marx it installs a centralized government to reorganize society, and manage the means of production.
How does The People's Republic of Assholistan realistically move from banana republic to worker's paradise taking into account human nature.
I should be clear (if not before) that, although I am laughing at the concept of communism on earth, itsw utopianism is something that would be heavenly (and reserved for such a place).
So, in other words, it won't work here because people suck. In "another place" it might be just fine...
(this was also a GC favorite when she was about five. Mine too! ).
It could only be done if all people were willing for it to be done, if even one person didn't want to then the farthest anyone would get would be socialism, and i can't say what i'd do because i am not smart enough to run a country, very few people are.
I'll ask again. How would a communist state, by necessity a dictatorship, ever move beyond the dictatorship.
AKA whats going to make it do that? Whats going to make the party apparatchuks and the army give up power?
And I'll answer it, for the third time in this thread, because apparently I love to inflict suffering on my self. And afterwards I'll pretend to look shocked when you ignore and post the same nonsense all over again.
Your first mistaken assumption is that communism requires an initial dictatorship. If a party runs for government in an open election with the platform 'we'll nationalise the means of production' and wins, and then goes about nationalising the means of production... that's now a communist country, and one that's been democratically elected. There would be nothing stopping them from continuing to have elections and winning government.
Your second mistaken assumption is that governments never surrender power. I already pointed out the USSR, who became democratic not through a people's revolution or through the invasion of some other country, but by recognising that their communist system had simply failed to deliver.
And now I look forward to asking those same fething questions again, as if they'd never been answered.
Why Do The Young Vote For Dependency(Socialism/Communism)?
BECAUSE IT’S ALL THEY’VE EVER KNOWN!
Generally speaking the family is communist — from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs — and it takes a while to realize that the rest of the world doesn’t work that way, because only parents are willing to make that sort of sacrifice, and then only for their own kids.
TermiesInARaider wrote: Communism; wonderful idea on paper, never really works in reality. It sort of requires massive amounts of dedication from everyone involved. The moment you have one person who's not working his all for the community and trying to coast by, the model breaks.
Nope, not a thing. I've explained it about 15 fething times in this fething thread, only to have people just jump in 'why the feth should I read what anyone else has to say, they're just a bunch of donkey-caves... here's my opinion that I'm going to tell all of them'
I mean, for feth's sakes, this thread is getting beyond a joke. I don't mean to dump just on you TermiesInaRaider because you're not the only one, in fact it seems like every other post is someone coming in to say 'oh it's a utopia but human nature blah fething blah blah'... it's just bs.
Read. You don't even have to read a book. Just read this thread. Communism in writing might sound like an impossible utopian dream, but then so does capitalism in writing. Actual, real world communism has a very keen sense of human nature. In fact, their mistrust of human nature if anything is typically way overstated - look up the number of secret police employed to root out class traitors and any notion of communism as idealising humans should disappear quite quickly.
Instead, communism in practice has understood that people are self-interested and work more for their own good than for the overall benefit of society. Just like capitalism accepts that. The real, and definitive difference is that in capitalism the means of production are owned by private individuals chasing profit, while in communism the means of production are owned by the state.
And the final, absolute reason that capitalism has flourished while communism failed is because expecting a massive bureaucratic state to develop new products and innovative new solutions is a terrible idea.
And the final, absolute reason that capitalism has flourished while communism failed is because expecting a massive bureaucratic state to develop new products and innovative new solutions is a terrible idea.
problem: Development of the space frontier. I'm going to pull a Neil deGrasse Tyson on you and say: show me where in history it was that the markets lead the way into research and development or exploration or advances, where the state did not step in first and lay the ground work from which the markets could spring off of? You need a lot of loss and a lot of disinterested effort in an area before anyone else can come in, see whats there and run with it in a fashion that is profitable. This is where the state absolutely needs to come in, and I point at the US for its own decline, because the killing of their own federally funded research is what killed innovation, as well as assured American dominance in the international market.
whembly wrote: Here's a different slant on this question Seb...
Why Do The Young Vote For Dependency(Socialism/Communism)?
BECAUSE IT’S ALL THEY’VE EVER KNOWN!
Generally speaking the family is communist — from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs — and it takes a while to realize that the rest of the world doesn’t work that way, because only parents are willing to make that sort of sacrifice, and then only for their own kids.
Nah, there's plenty of young 'uns who take up the opposite bent - absolute unfettered faith in the free market. I think the real issue is that kids are likely to grab on to a simple model that makes sense of it all by blaming everything on some authority figure. Whether that authority figure is rich elite businessmen or stupid dodderheaded government bureaucracies doesn't really matter, the point is to feel like you're on a crusade (I might have one such person at one stage ).
Then you leave highschool and get a job, maybe to pay for college, maybe not. Then you get the next stage of politics - the first pay cheque libertarians (wait the government takes 20% of what I earn?!) and first pay cheque socialists (wait all I can afford on my retail job salary is a single room apartment in a gak neighbourhood?!)
Automatically Appended Next Post:
poda_t wrote: problem: Development of the space frontier. I'm going to pull a Neil deGrasse Tyson on you and say: show me where in history it was that the markets lead the way into research and development or exploration or advances, where the state did not step in first and lay the ground work from which the markets could spring off of? You need a lot of loss and a lot of disinterested effort in an area before anyone else can come in, see whats there and run with it in a fashion that is profitable. This is where the state absolutely needs to come in, and I point at the US for its own decline, because the killing of their own federally funded research is what killed innovation, as well as assured American dominance in the international market.
Sure thing. Bare in mind I've simplifying a hell of a lot in this thread. There are plenty of places for direct government nation building - I'd already mentioned the space program as something the Soviets did quite well, but also major nation building projects like hydro-electric dams, irrigation, all that kind of stuff is definitely a place for government.
And there's also the inter-connectedness of government projects and private investment. All kinds of engineering and medical technologies are originally developed through government research undertaken in universities, before being taken to the private sector before in order to roll out a final, useable product to the market.
It's just that such projects can't ever be the sole driver of growth. Otherwise you see exactly what we saw in the USSR - excellence in specific government pet projects (space program and some medical fields) and but nothing else besides.
This isn't particularly aimed at anyone or any comments that have yet happened on the thread, just my ideas about what would be the best situation possible.
I think the main problem with communism isn't how it would be run, but rather how to get it running. It is (in theory) possible to create communism (or very close to it) where everything runs well, however it would require people having the right mindset e.g. wanting to work or create new technologies, and also a working political system which will always be difficult to set up.
I'm sceptical of the idea that we will always need further development, which communism will always have difficulties providing. Sure, better healthcare, better gadgets, better fuels and so on, but once (and if) we get to a point where the entire system is stable, what would be stopping something close to communism? Of course, motivation towards work is always useful, but other than that why should anyone get more than anyone else?
As for governance, once a stable system was in place surely very little law-creating would be needed? Of course, should a crisis happen you would always need someone there to be ready for it, but it would largely be unnecessary, as far as I can see.
Ok, I admit it's the kind of thing that Stalin would say. But (and I completely understand if you think I'm a psychopath after this), surely it would be better to change peoples' minds for them if it resulted in them being better off? I'm not suggesting we do this, because it would require someone to oversee it... but in theory, would it not be for the best?
I think the real issue is that kids are likely to grab on to a simple model that makes sense of it all by blaming everything on some authority figure. Whether that authority figure is rich elite businessmen or stupid dodderheaded government bureaucracies doesn't really matter, the point is to feel like you're on a crusade (I might have one such person at one stage ).
Then you leave highschool and get a job, maybe to pay for college, maybe not. Then you get the next stage of politics - the first pay cheque libertarians (wait the government takes 20% of what I earn?!) and first pay cheque socialists (wait all I can afford on my retail job salary is a single room apartment in a gak neighbourhood?!)
p_gray99 wrote: This isn't particularly aimed at anyone or any comments that have yet happened on the thread, just my ideas about what would be the best situation possible.
I think the main problem with communism isn't how it would be run, but rather how to get it running. It is (in theory) possible to create communism (or very close to it) where everything runs well, however it would require people having the right mindset e.g. wanting to work or create new technologies, and also a working political system which will always be difficult to set up.
I don't think it's very wise to set up a political system and then try to get people to act in a way that'll make your political system work. I think the only practical political systems start with the reality of how people think and behave, and work with that.
As a simple example, it'd make no sense and be a total fething disaster to just drop into Medieval Europe and tell everyone women are equal and have all the same rights as men. We take that as a basic political truth now, but it took centuries of steady changes to our economic and social systems to reach a point where women could be seen as equal to men.
I'm sceptical of the idea that we will always need further development, which communism will always have difficulties providing.
Absolutely agree. But while such a point might be possible down the line, we certainly aren't there now.
p_gray99 wrote: Ok, I admit it's the kind of thing that Stalin would say. But (and I completely understand if you think I'm a psychopath after this), surely it would be better to change peoples' minds for them if it resulted in them being better off? I'm not suggesting we do this, because it would require someone to oversee it... but in theory, would it not be for the best?
They won't be better off if they are dead, unless you believe in that Heaven thing.
I think the real issue is that kids are likely to grab on to a simple model that makes sense of it all by blaming everything on some authority figure. Whether that authority figure is rich elite businessmen or stupid dodderheaded government bureaucracies doesn't really matter, the point is to feel like you're on a crusade (I might have one such person at one stage ).
Then you leave highschool and get a job, maybe to pay for college, maybe not. Then you get the next stage of politics - the first pay cheque libertarians (wait the government takes 20% of what I earn?!) and first pay cheque socialists (wait all I can afford on my retail job salary is a single room apartment in a gak neighbourhood?!)
When does frazzled leave highschool? WHEN?
High school. I remember it fondly. My first day of class: Advanced Pointy Sticks, More Pointy Sticks, Modern Philosophy-Fire Do We Need It?, and who can forget-Homo Sapiens-a A Passing Fad?
Frazzled wrote: "It would require people having the right mindset."
And the Gulag is born.
Heck, we've convicnced over half the country that 'reality' TV is worth watching; next to that convincing people to give communism a chance is child's play.
Assuming we could get the capitolist entities in charge of mass media to go along...
Frazzled wrote: "It would require people having the right mindset."
And the Gulag is born.
But everything does rely on people having the right mindset, especially a social change as dramatic as communism, and not everybody has to go in a Gulag if they disagree, people can agree to disagree, most people do, all that it does is stop the change, and that might even be a good thing to a certain extent, longer to figure things out.
Frazzled wrote: "It would require people having the right mindset."
And the Gulag is born.
But everything does rely on people having the right mindset, especially a social change as dramatic as communism, and not everybody has to go in a Gulag if they disagree, people can agree to disagree, most people do, all that it does is stop the change, and that might even be a good thing to a certain extent, longer to figure things out.
History disagrees. Inevitably the gulags get a rip roaring in any communist regime.
Frazzled wrote: "It would require people having the right mindset."
And the Gulag is born.
But everything does rely on people having the right mindset, especially a social change as dramatic as communism, and not everybody has to go in a Gulag if they disagree, people can agree to disagree, most people do, all that it does is stop the change, and that might even be a good thing to a certain extent, longer to figure things out.
History disagrees. Inevitably the gulags get a rip roaring in any communist regime.
Yet again we are looking at history to see the future, and i have already agreed that most communist counties have been a failure, the only 2 that done well was the USSR (to a certain extent) and present day China. And they both have there problems, hell China isn't even a communist country because it still has "classes".
Look all i am trying to say is that you can not look to the past to discriminate against poeple in the present or the future.
Finally i think that both me and you should agree to disagree here, we are not going to solve the worlds problems on our computers on DD.
Its not an agree to disagree. Marx himself said the government had to be a dictatorship. Its integral to the concept. He then strangely thought you could move beyond the dictatorship to a utopian society.
monarchial dictatorship to state dictatorship to PROFIT!
Frazzled wrote: Its not an agree to disagree. Marx himself said the government had to be a dictatorship. Its integral to the concept. He then strangely thought you could move beyond the dictatorship to a utopian society.
monarchial dictatorship to state dictatorship to PROFIT!
I'm not very good with the history of the soviet union, but I believe that Lenin gave a reasonable amount of power to the people, at least in comparison to the dictators that came after him.
Democracy can never work perfectly, because it only takes one person with a lot of charisma to lead the nation to a bad decision. But at the same time, a bad dictator will ruin a country even more. And that's why we need a system where the person in charge is incorruptable, and will either always remain in power or will then go on to choose an incorruptable leader for the next generation. That's something I don't think humans are capable of, so until we can be certain that a computer is capable of leading a country communism won't work. I can only hope that I will be alive when such technologies are available, and that they are used in the right way when they are.
Becasue the CIA has a spotless record for not ruining other countries and creating regimes operate from the proceeds of narcotics which wind up in the US...
Becasue the CIA has a spotless record for not ruining other countries and creating regimes operate from the proceeds of narcotics which wind up in the US...
Yes, the CIA might not be perfect but just because capitalism has its (multiple irreversible and ultimately catastrophic) faults doesn't mean that communism is any better. If we're trying to find a way to make a perfect system, then we know none of those currently in existance are what we want.
Back on topic: Has communism with democracy ever been attempted? I know it wouldn't be faultless, but we can't simply say it would flat out fail if it's never been tried. Then again, I'm not sure we should try it given the results that could be created if it didn't work...
p_gray99 wrote: Yes, the CIA might not be perfect but just because capitalism has its (multiple irreversible and ultimately catastrophic) faults doesn't mean that communism is any better. If we're trying to find a way to make a perfect system, then we know none of those currently in existance are what we want.
Back on topic: Has communism with democracy ever been attempted? I know it wouldn't be faultless, but we can't simply say it would flat out fail if it's never been tried. Then again, I'm not sure we should try it given the results that could be created if it didn't work...
attempted? Most certainly. And died before the first vote was cast.
Marx said it required a dictatorship? Maybe I'm misremembering, or maybe he just wrote differently at some point, but I could've sworn he said it required a democracy.
HiveFleetPlastic wrote: Marx said it required a dictatorship? Maybe I'm misremembering, or maybe he just wrote differently at some point, but I could've sworn he said it required a democracy.
Marx doesn't mention a dictatorship specifically, he mentions a revolutionary movement as a necessity and that the resulting "Revolutionary Class" becomes the ruling class for the duration of the transition period = a dictatorship.
HiveFleetPlastic wrote: Marx said it required a dictatorship? Maybe I'm misremembering, or maybe he just wrote differently at some point, but I could've sworn he said it required a democracy.
Marx doesn't mention a dictatorship specifically, he mentions a revolutionary movement as a necessity and that the resulting "Revolutionary Class" becomes the ruling class for the duration of the transition period = a dictatorship.
HiveFleetPlastic wrote: Marx said it required a dictatorship? Maybe I'm misremembering, or maybe he just wrote differently at some point, but I could've sworn he said it required a democracy.
Marx doesn't mention a dictatorship specifically, he mentions a revolutionary movement as a necessity and that the resulting "Revolutionary Class" becomes the ruling class for the duration of the transition period = a dictatorship.
Well, yes, but the Marxist definition of democracy isn't exactly the same as the definition that we currently use... Marxism uses the literal Greek definition i.e. "rules of the masses" and denounces the western liberal democracy as being a "dictatorship of the bourgeoisie" that keeps the proletariat under its control.
So the Marxist interpretation of "Dictatorship of the proletariat" needed to implement communism is allot closer to a "real" dictatorship than it is to our current Democracies...
Or at least that is my interpretation of it from what I've read, I'm not a political sciences student so chances are that I'm wrong somewhere!
HiveFleetPlastic wrote: Marx said it required a dictatorship? Maybe I'm misremembering, or maybe he just wrote differently at some point, but I could've sworn he said it required a democracy.
Marx doesn't mention a dictatorship specifically, he mentions a revolutionary movement as a necessity and that the resulting "Revolutionary Class" becomes the ruling class for the duration of the transition period = a dictatorship.
Well, yes, but the Marxist definition of democracy isn't exactly the same as the definition that we currently use... Marxism uses the literal Greek definition i.e. "rules of the masses" and denounces the western liberal democracy as being a "dictatorship of the bourgeoisie" that keeps the proletariat under its control.
So the Marxist interpretation of "Dictatorship of the proletariat" needed to implement communism is allot closer to a "real" dictatorship than it is to our current Democracies...
Or at least that is my interpretation of it from what I've read, I'm not a political sciences student so chances are that I'm wrong somewhere!
It can quite easily be argued such a system is more democratic than ours, the electing of representatives(from one of only a few parties) to convoluted houses to do deals we only see the results of isn't exactly a political utopia. More so when you factor in silly voting systems like the first past the post and electoral college.
I don't think you can be wrong when it comes to the social sciences.
MetalOxide wrote: Both communism and capitalism ends up with the top 1% lording it over the 99%.
Yes, but the difference is that with capitalism the top 1% are having a great time because they're the only ones with everything they want while the bottom 30% starve.
And while the top 1% still rule in communism, that's not to say they necessarily have the best time of it. If the communism is working, they still get just the same stuff as everyone else, they just get the added bonus of a headache trying to keep it all running.
MetalOxide wrote: Both communism and capitalism ends up with the top 1% lording it over the 99%.
Yes, but the difference is that with capitalism the top 1% are having a great time because they're the only ones with everything they want while the bottom 30% starve.
And while the top 1% still rule in communism, that's not to say they necessarily have the best time of it. If the communism is working, they still get just the same stuff as everyone else, they just get the added bonus of a headache trying to keep it all running.
The regimes in China, USSR, Cambodia, Vietnam, Cuba, and Nicaragua prove the falsehood of that statement.
MetalOxide wrote: Both communism and capitalism ends up with the top 1% lording it over the 99%.
Yes, but the difference is that with capitalism the top 1% are having a great time because they're the only ones with everything they want while the bottom 30% starve.
And while the top 1% still rule in communism, that's not to say they necessarily have the best time of it. If the communism is working, they still get just the same stuff as everyone else, they just get the added bonus of a headache trying to keep it all running.
The regimes in China, USSR, Cambodia, Vietnam, Cuba, and Nicaragua prove the falsehood of that statement.
And the capitalist democracies of the rest of the world prove the falsehood of the "starving 30%"...
MetalOxide wrote: Both communism and capitalism ends up with the top 1% lording it over the 99%.
Yes, but the difference is that with capitalism the top 1% are having a great time because they're the only ones with everything they want while the bottom 30% starve.
And while the top 1% still rule in communism, that's not to say they necessarily have the best time of it. If the communism is working, they still get just the same stuff as everyone else, they just get the added bonus of a headache trying to keep it all running.
The regimes in China, USSR, Cambodia, Vietnam, Cuba, and Nicaragua prove the falsehood of that statement.
I'm really sick of you using real world examples and pointing out the real world is different from political theory. Ridiculous! Those poor party hacks in china had a tough time .
MetalOxide wrote: Both communism and capitalism ends up with the top 1% lording it over the 99%.
Yes, but the difference is that with capitalism the top 1% are having a great time because they're the only ones with everything they want while the bottom 30% starve.
And while the top 1% still rule in communism, that's not to say they necessarily have the best time of it. If the communism is working, they still get just the same stuff as everyone else, they just get the added bonus of a headache trying to keep it all running.
The regimes in China, USSR, Cambodia, Vietnam, Cuba, and Nicaragua prove the falsehood of that statement.
I disagree. They prove how difficult it is to create a working democracy that doesn't have corrupt leaders. Simply because we haven't had a communist state that works the way it should do yet doesn't make the theory behind communism any different.
MetalOxide wrote: Both communism and capitalism ends up with the top 1% lording it over the 99%.
Yes, but the difference is that with capitalism the top 1% are having a great time because they're the only ones with everything they want while the bottom 30% starve.
Starving 30%
Overstate things much? As a member of that 30% my pantry is quite full.
Edit: The quote tool here gets frustrating sometimes...
Food Insecurity and Very Low Food Security iv
•In 2011, 50.1 million Americans lived in food insecure households, 33.5 million adults and 16.7 million children.
•In 2011, 14.9 percent of households (17.9 million households) were food insecure.
•In 2011, 5.7 percent of households (6.8 million households) experienced very low food security.
•In 2011, households with children reported food insecurity at a significantly higher rate than those without children, 20.6 percent compared to 12.2percent.
•In 2011, households that had higher rates of food insecurity than the national average included households with children (20.6 percent), especially households with children headed by single women (36.8 percent) or single men (24.9 percent), Black non-Hispanic households (25.1 percent) and Hispanic households (26.2 percent).
•In 2011, 8.8 percent of seniors living alone (1 million households) were food insecure.
•Food insecurity exists in every county in America, ranging from a low of 5 percent in Steele County, ND to a high of 37 percent in Holmes County, MS.v
I wonder what their definition of "food insecurity" is. I didn't find anything on a quick perusal of the site. I'd wager it's not quite the same as what true "food insecurity" is like in many African nations.
*sigh*
Apparently now I'm online I'm not allowed to exaggerate. But my point was that far too many people go without while a very small number have far too much, as has been discussed in previous topics.
Very low food security can be characterized in terms of the
conditions that households in this category reported in the
food security survey (households without children classified
as having very low food security reported six or more foodinsecure
conditions and households with children reported eight
or more food-insecure conditions, including conditions among
both adults and children). Thus, the defining characteristic
of “very low food security” is that, at times during the year,
the food intake of household members was reduced and their
normal eating patterns were disrupted because the household
lacked money and other resources for food. In the 2011
survey, households classified as having very low food security
(representing an estimated 6.8 million households nationwide)
reported the following specific conditions:
• 99 percent reported having worried that their food would
run out before they got money to buy more.
• 97 percent reported that the food they bought just did not
last and they did not have money to get more.
• 95 percent reported that they could not afford to eat
balanced meals.
• 97 percent reported that an adult had cut the size of meals
or skipped meals because there was not enough money
for food.
• 91 percent reported that this had occurred in 3 or more
months.
• 95 percent reported that they had eaten less than they felt
they should because there was not enough money for food.
• 65 percent reported that they had been hungry but did not
eat because they could not afford enough food.
• 48 percent reported having lost weight because they did
not have enough money for food.
• 27 percent reported that an adult did not eat for a whole
day because there was not enough money for food.
• 21 percent reported that this had occurred in 3 or more
months.
• All households without children reported at least six of
these conditions, and 66 percent reported seven or more.
(Conditions in households with children were similar,
but the reported food-insecure conditions of both adults
and children were taken into account.)
Questions used:
1. “We worried whether our food would run out before we got money to buy
more.” Was that often, sometimes, or never true for you in the last 12 months?
2. “The food that we bought just didn’t last and we didn’t have money to get
more.” Was that often, sometimes, or never true for you in the last 12 months?
3. “We couldn’t afford to eat balanced meals.” Was that often, sometimes, or
never true for you in the last 12 months?
4. In the last 12 months, did you or other adults in the household ever cut the size of
your meals or skip meals because there wasn’t enough money for food? (Yes/No)
5. (If yes to question 4) How often did this happen—almost every month, some
months but not every month, or in only 1 or 2 months?
6. In the last 12 months, did you ever eat less than you felt you should because
there wasn’t enough money for food? (Yes/No)
7. In the last 12 months, were you ever hungry, but didn’t eat, because there
wasn’t enough money for food? (Yes/No)
8. In the last 12 months, did you lose weight because there wasn’t enough money
for food? (Yes/No)
9. In the last 12 months did you or other adults in your household ever not eat for
a whole day because there wasn’t enough money for food? (Yes/No)
10. (If yes to question 9) How often did this happen—almost every month, some
months but not every month, or in only 1 or 2 months?
(Questions 11-18 were asked only if the household included children age 0-17)
11. “We relied on only a few kinds of low-cost food to feed our children because
we were running out of money to buy food.” Was that often, sometimes, or
never true for you in the last 12 months?
12. “We couldn’t feed our children a balanced meal, because we couldn’t afford
that.” Was that often, sometimes, or never true for you in the last 12 months?
13. “The children were not eating enough because we just couldn’t afford enough
food.” Was that often, sometimes, or never true for you in the last 12 months?
14. In the last 12 months, did you ever cut the size of any of the children’s meals
because there wasn’t enough money for food? (Yes/No)
15. In the last 12 months, were the children ever hungry but you just couldn’t
afford more food? (Yes/No)
16. In the last 12 months, did any of the children ever skip a meal because there
wasn’t enough money for food? (Yes/No)
17. (If yes to question 16) How often did this happen—almost every month, some
months but not every month, or in only 1 or 2 months?
18. In the last 12 months did any of the children ever not eat for a whole day
because there wasn’t enough money for food? (Yes/No)
p_gray99 wrote: *sigh*
Apparently now I'm online I'm not allowed to exaggerate. But my point was that far too many people go without while a very small number have far too much, as has been discussed in previous topics.
Except that that percentage of people is demonstrably much lower in western capitalist democracies than in any other form of government / economic model in recorded history.
Much like Democracy is the worst form of government with the exception of all others so is Capitalism the worst form of economic model with the exception of all others...
Very low food security can be characterized in terms of the
conditions that households in this category reported in the
food security survey (households without children classified
as having very low food security reported six or more foodinsecure
conditions and households with children reported eight
or more food-insecure conditions, including conditions among
both adults and children). Thus, the defining characteristic
of “very low food security” is that, at times during the year,
the food intake of household members was reduced and their
normal eating patterns were disrupted because the household
lacked money and other resources for food. In the 2011
survey, households classified as having very low food security
(representing an estimated 6.8 million households nationwide)
reported the following specific conditions:
• 99 percent reported having worried that their food would
run out before they got money to buy more.
• 97 percent reported that the food they bought just did not
last and they did not have money to get more.
• 95 percent reported that they could not afford to eat
balanced meals.
• 97 percent reported that an adult had cut the size of meals
or skipped meals because there was not enough money
for food.
• 91 percent reported that this had occurred in 3 or more
months.
• 95 percent reported that they had eaten less than they felt
they should because there was not enough money for food.
• 65 percent reported that they had been hungry but did not
eat because they could not afford enough food.
• 48 percent reported having lost weight because they did
not have enough money for food.
• 27 percent reported that an adult did not eat for a whole
day because there was not enough money for food.
• 21 percent reported that this had occurred in 3 or more
months.
• All households without children reported at least six of
these conditions, and 66 percent reported seven or more.
(Conditions in households with children were similar,
but the reported food-insecure conditions of both adults
and children were taken into account.)
Questions used:
1. “We worried whether our food would run out before we got money to buy
more.” Was that often, sometimes, or never true for you in the last 12 months?
2. “The food that we bought just didn’t last and we didn’t have money to get
more.” Was that often, sometimes, or never true for you in the last 12 months?
3. “We couldn’t afford to eat balanced meals.” Was that often, sometimes, or
never true for you in the last 12 months?
4. In the last 12 months, did you or other adults in the household ever cut the size of
your meals or skip meals because there wasn’t enough money for food? (Yes/No)
5. (If yes to question 4) How often did this happen—almost every month, some
months but not every month, or in only 1 or 2 months?
6. In the last 12 months, did you ever eat less than you felt you should because
there wasn’t enough money for food? (Yes/No)
7. In the last 12 months, were you ever hungry, but didn’t eat, because there
wasn’t enough money for food? (Yes/No)
8. In the last 12 months, did you lose weight because there wasn’t enough money
for food? (Yes/No)
9. In the last 12 months did you or other adults in your household ever not eat for
a whole day because there wasn’t enough money for food? (Yes/No)
10. (If yes to question 9) How often did this happen—almost every month, some
months but not every month, or in only 1 or 2 months?
(Questions 11-18 were asked only if the household included children age 0-17)
11. “We relied on only a few kinds of low-cost food to feed our children because
we were running out of money to buy food.” Was that often, sometimes, or
never true for you in the last 12 months?
12. “We couldn’t feed our children a balanced meal, because we couldn’t afford
that.” Was that often, sometimes, or never true for you in the last 12 months?
13. “The children were not eating enough because we just couldn’t afford enough
food.” Was that often, sometimes, or never true for you in the last 12 months?
14. In the last 12 months, did you ever cut the size of any of the children’s meals
because there wasn’t enough money for food? (Yes/No)
15. In the last 12 months, were the children ever hungry but you just couldn’t
afford more food? (Yes/No)
16. In the last 12 months, did any of the children ever skip a meal because there
wasn’t enough money for food? (Yes/No)
17. (If yes to question 16) How often did this happen—almost every month, some
months but not every month, or in only 1 or 2 months?
18. In the last 12 months did any of the children ever not eat for a whole day
because there wasn’t enough money for food? (Yes/No)
So to summarise, people classified as not having enough food don't have enough food.
PhantomViper wrote:
p_gray99 wrote: *sigh*
Apparently now I'm online I'm not allowed to exaggerate. But my point was that far too many people go without while a very small number have far too much, as has been discussed in previous topics.
Except that that percentage of people is demonstrably much lower in western capitalist democracies than in any other form of government / economic model in recorded history.
Much like Democracy is the worst form of government with the exception of all others so is Capitalism the worst form of economic model with the exception of all others...
Yup, but that doesn't mean we can't strive for and create a better system, just because previous attempts have failed.
Also, those countries that are likely to become communist are those that are more likely to suffer food shortages because there's nothing like millions of starving laborers to get a rebellion started, so I don't think it's a fair comparison. It's a case of B causing A, as well as (or possibly instead of) B causing A.
p_gray99 wrote: *sigh*
Apparently now I'm online I'm not allowed to exaggerate. But my point was that far too many people go without while a very small number have far too much, as has been discussed in previous topics.
The real point is that even in grossly "disparate" modern Western economies, the bottom 4 quintiles still have far more than those in these historical communist regimes.
I'd rather be one of the bottom 20% in the USA than "middle class" in North Korea.
djones520 wrote: In Russia, didn't the starvation start after they converted? As far as I understand it, food wasn't that big an issue prior to the revolution.
True, but it's still the poorer countries that are far more likely to convert, making it a little unbalanced. And anyway, I don't really think that Stalin's muck-ups were the fault of communism, they were the fault of Stalin.
djones520 wrote: In Russia, didn't the starvation start after they converted? As far as I understand it, food wasn't that big an issue prior to the revolution.
True, but it's still the poorer countries that are far more likely to convert, making it a little unbalanced. And anyway, I don't really think that Stalin's muck-ups were the fault of communism, they were the fault of Stalin.
IIRC there was a food shortage for a short period prior to the revolution, due to rationing and whatnot for the war effort in WW1. But, I think that it was close enough to not really bear much responsibility for the revolution in itself.
Yup, but that doesn't mean we can't strive for and create a better system, just because previous attempts have failed.
Also, those countries that are likely to become communist are those that are more likely to suffer food shortages because there's nothing like millions of starving laborers to get a rebellion started, so I don't think it's a fair comparison. It's a case of B causing A, as well as (or possibly instead of) B causing A.
Except that most people living in the real world don't really believe that Communism is a "better system", especially because all previous attempts to implement it have failed, often catastrophically and leaving tens of millions of dead in their wake...
And your interpretation on Communist policies not being a direct cause of impoverishment and famine in the lower brackets of a society is highly suspect!
Communism in China was implemented in 1949, the great famine that killed from 20 to 40 million Chinese happened in 1958! Kind of hard to blame that on the Kuomintang...
Communism in the Soviet Union was implemented in 1922, the great famine that again killed millions of Russions happened in 1932. How was this the fault of the Tzar?
The Khmer Rouge ruled Cambodia from 1975 to 1979, their agricultural reform policies killed as much as 1.1 millions people through widespread famine!
I'll take my chances with our imperfect system, thank you very much.
PhantomViper wrote: Except that most people living in the real world don't really believe that Communism is a "better system", especially because all previous attempts to implement it have failed, often catastrophically and leaving tens of millions of dead in their wake...
And your interpretation on Communist policies not being a direct cause of impoverishment and famine in the lower brackets of a society is highly suspect!
Communism in China was implemented in 1949, the great famine that killed from 20 to 40 million Chinese happened in 1958! Kind of hard to blame that on the Kuomintang...
Communism in the Soviet Union was implemented in 1922, the great famine that again killed millions of Russions happened in 1932. How was this the fault of the Tzar?
The Khmer Rouge ruled Cambodia from 1975 to 1979, their agricultural reform policies killed as much as 1.1 millions people through widespread famine!
I'll take my chances with our imperfect system, thank you very much.
At your points, in the order you put them in:
ORLY? Because I'd say that about 30% of my friends are communists. I know that's an exceptionally high number, but they're all intelligent and well educated, and almost all of them have done history GCSE and got between a B and an A*, yet don't think that past failings mean we won't be able to manage in the future. Now, we're not necessarily correct about this, but neither are "most people living in the real world".
I merely said that it's the less developed and economically powerful countries that experience things such as famines, and it's the less developed and economically powerful countries that convert to capitalism. Might there possibly be a link?
I'm not blaming it on the Kuomintag. Who said I was? I'm merely pointing out a link.
Again, I'm not blaming the Tzar. I've agreed that Stalin's failings were many, and again emphasised that I'm merely pointing out a link. And both those famines might easily have happened if the countries hadn't been communist, anyway.
Yup, they had bad leaders. Anyone can have bad leaders though, it has little to do with whether the country happens to be communist or capitalist.
So basically you're saying that because past attempts have failed, future attempts will definitely fail. I think you forgot the "/sarcasm" at the end of your post though.
So basically you're saying that because past attempts have failed, future attempts will definitely fail. I think you forgot the "/sarcasm" at the end of your post though.
p_gray99 wrote: Yeah, but it's not like you're going to have the exact same circumstances as the russian revolution ever again, are you?
It would be awesome if communism could chalk up one, just one success though... It would also be awesome if communism could chalk up one cumminst state that didn't rely on repression to maintain its power, usually resulting in the death of thousands/millions.
It would also be awesome if communism could chalk up one cumminst state that didn't rely on repression to maintain its power, usually resulting in the death of thousands/millions.
It would also be awesome if communism could chalk up one cumminst state that didn't rely on repression to maintain its power, usually resulting in the death of thousands/millions.
It would be awesome if any state could do that.
I'm interested to hear your justification that the US Government maintains it's power through repression.
It would also be awesome if communism could chalk up one cumminst state that didn't rely on repression to maintain its power, usually resulting in the death of thousands/millions.
It would be awesome if any state could do that.
I'm interested to hear your justification that the US Government maintains it's power through repression.
It would also be awesome if communism could chalk up one cumminst state that didn't rely on repression to maintain its power, usually resulting in the death of thousands/millions.
It would be awesome if any state could do that.
I'm interested to hear your justification that the US Government maintains it's power through repression.
When I see my taxes, I sure feel oppressed.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'm interested to hear your justification that the US Government maintains it's power through repression.
Civil War?
You mean the war where we freed millions of people from a life of bondage? Thats your idea of repression? Its a definition thats exemplary in its uniqueness.
Trail of Tears?
Not seeing how that is related to democracy repressing its citizens there buckwheat.
It would also be awesome if communism could chalk up one cumminst state that didn't rely on repression to maintain its power, usually resulting in the death of thousands/millions.
It would be awesome if any state could do that.
I'm interested to hear your justification that the US Government maintains it's power through repression.
Civil War?
Trail of Tears?
The Civil War is the closest argument that you could make, though the effect of freeing millions of people would kind of nullify that. The Trail of Tears isn't even close, since there was no threat to the base of power of the government, nor any powers gained by the action. The Constituion, and the basis of power for our government, wasn't changed in any way by it.
Oklahoma is a prime example of screwing over citizens all over the country, giving them one last place, and then taking that away from them too. The treatment of native american citizens is a good indicator of how a democratic republic can be repressive of it's people.
And say what you want about the end result of the civil war, pretending that the actions taken by both sides during the war is not representative of a repressive government is somewhat silly.
Throw in the internment of the Japanese citizens during WW2 as well if you want to.
Our country has some soiled spots when it comes to freedom and liberty and whatnot.
p_gray99 wrote: At your points, in the order you put them in:
ORLY? Because I'd say that about 30% of my friends are communists. I know that's an exceptionally high number, but they're all intelligent and well educated, and almost all of them have done history GCSE and got between a B and an A*, yet don't think that past failings mean we won't be able to manage in the future. Now, we're not necessarily correct about this, but neither are "most people living in the real world".
I know that Communist math is different from real math, but even with your disproportionately high sample, 70% is still considered "most people".
Now all that we need is for you to say that the capitalist bourgeoisie has brainwashed those 69% and that they don't know any better!
I merely said that it's the less developed and economically powerful countries that experience things such as famines, and it's the less developed and economically powerful countries that convert to capitalism. Might there possibly be a link?
Yes, but that conversion was supposed to make the people's lives better, not worse!
I'm not blaming it on the Kuomintag. Who said I was? I'm merely pointing out a link.
Again, I'm not blaming the Tzar. I've agreed that Stalin's failings were many, and again emphasised that I'm merely pointing out a link. And both those famines might easily have happened if the countries hadn't been communist, anyway.
Yup, they had bad leaders. Anyone can have bad leaders though, it has little to do with whether the country happens to be communist or capitalist.
Yes, but a bad leader in a capitalist democracy = country economy goes to the toilet and the level of living decreases a bit and the leader is run out of power.
Bad leader in a communist country = a very large part of the population dies from purges and starvation.
At least in the impoverished countries that turned to nationalism you still had the purges but you didn't have the mass starvation... /this sentence really is sarcasm btw
So basically you're saying that because past attempts have failed, future attempts will definitely fail. I think you forgot the "/sarcasm" at the end of your post though.
Its not that past attempts have failed, its that ALL past attempts have failed! In the 80's as much as a third of the world governments where communist. Not a SINGLE ONE was a success! Not ONE!
Like whembly said: trying the same thing over and over and expecting different results is the definition of insanity.
d-usa wrote: Oklahoma is a prime example of screwing over citizens all over the country, giving them one last place, and then taking that away from them too. The treatment of native american citizens is a good indicator of how a democratic republic can be repressive of it's people.
And say what you want about the end result of the civil war, pretending that the actions taken by both sides during the war is not representative of a repressive government is somewhat silly.
Throw in the internment of the Japanese citizens during WW2 as well if you want to.
Our country has some soiled spots when it comes to freedom and liberty and whatnot.
There is no denying that our government has used repression as a tool in it's history.
But as a tool to maintain, or grow it's power, your failing at providing examples. That's because the basis of power for our government is truly in the hands of the people. Unlike Communism.
d-usa wrote: The North could have just let the South split. Let them be their own country and free the slaves in the north.
But they used repression to maintain power over the whole US, and passed many repressive laws to be able to keep that power.
The repression of the Native Americans was also influenced by the desire to maintain and grow power by increasing the land and resources available.
Enforcing a contract is not repression. When the states joined the union, they did so for good. It's been found repeatedly that secession is not a legal option for a state to take. The southern states also declared war on the northern states when they attempted to illegally take land that they legally sold to the United States Government (Ft. Sumter), by attacking a US military installation.
And your still falling flat on your face with this argument, when you have to take into account that the whole thing was over slavery, and the ending of such. The "War of Northern Agression" (I use the name facetiously) was about freedom, and fighting those who wanted to continue oppresion.
And again, show me what powers the Indian Wars granted the US Government, what changes occured in the US Constitution that gave them more? That document is what provides the power to the government. Not land, not resources, but that document.
I'm interested to hear your justification that the US Government maintains it's power through repression.
Well, it came into existence in 1783 by way of violence, repressing all the people that weren't fans of the revolution, and it continues to repress people by force of law.
This isn't a bad thing. All states have to do it, but we shouldn't pretend that we don't have bodies buried in the foundations; no matter how exceptional we think we are.
d-usa wrote: Oklahoma is a prime example of screwing over citizens all over the country, giving them one last place, and then taking that away from them too. The treatment of native american citizens is a good indicator of how a democratic republic can be repressive of it's people.
Hate to tell it to you, but historically native americans weren't US citizens. Wrong, mostly, but has nothing to do with a democracy oppressing its citizens to maintian power. If you view driving the Cherokee out as a means by which democracy maintained power then your definitions are again, unique to yourself.
And say what you want about the end result of the civil war, pretending that the actions taken by both sides during the war is not representative of a repressive government is somewhat silly.
That doesn't even pass the lucidity test. What part of Billy Yank freeing the slaves are you not getting here? In fact thats anti oppression. Its one fo the most reighteous conflicts...well ever.
Throw in the internment of the Japanese citizens during WW2 as well if you want to.
Bad but that was the worst war in human history. Pardon the hell out of FDR.
Our country has some soiled spots when it comes to freedom and liberty and whatnot.
Yep. Then making the claim that is in any way similar to any communist country is, again, not lucid.
Democracy is the best of the worst options to humanity at this point.
I'm interested to hear your justification that the US Government maintains it's power through repression.
Well, it came into existence in 1783 by way of violence, repressing all the people that weren't fans of the revolution, and it continues to repress people by force of law.
This isn't a bad thing. All states have to do it, but we shouldn't pretend that we don't have bodies buried in the foundations; no matter how exceptional we think we are.
We're exceptional because the bodies give the foundations some flexibility when the ground settles... oh... too soon?
p_gray99 wrote: At your points, in the order you put them in: ORLY? Because I'd say that about 30% of my friends are communists. I know that's an exceptionally high number, but they're all intelligent and well educated, and almost all of them have done history GCSE and got between a B and an A*, yet don't think that past failings mean we won't be able to manage in the future. Now, we're not necessarily correct about this, but neither are "most people living in the real world".
I know that Communist math is different from real math, but even with your disproportionately high sample, 70% is still considered "most people".
I never said that most people thought communism was good. I was simply saying that it isn't as vast a majority as you'd think that are capitalist.
Now all that we need is for you to say that the capitalist bourgeoisie has brainwashed those 69% and that they don't know any better!
How do you know that? You're meant to be brainwashed to think differently!
I merely said that it's the less developed and economically powerful countries that experience things such as famines, and it's the less developed and economically powerful countries that convert to capitalism. Might there possibly be a link?
Yes, but that conversion was supposed to make the people's lives better, not worse!
Yup, communism so far has failed. No argument. Doesn't mean it's not feasible in the future though.
I'm not blaming it on the Kuomintag. Who said I was? I'm merely pointing out a link. Again, I'm not blaming the Tzar. I've agreed that Stalin's failings were many, and again emphasised that I'm merely pointing out a link. And both those famines might easily have happened if the countries hadn't been communist, anyway. Yup, they had bad leaders. Anyone can have bad leaders though, it has little to do with whether the country happens to be communist or capitalist.
Yes, but a bad leader in a capitalist democracy = country economy goes to the toilet and the level of living decreases a bit and the leader is run out of power.
Bad leader in a communist country = a very large part of the population dies from purges and starvation.
At least in the impoverished countries that turned to nationalism you still had the purges but you didn't have the mass starvation... /this sentence really is sarcasm btw
I think that's more of a difference between democracy and dictatorship than capitalism and communism, though I take your point. But equally, a capitalist country doing well = only 10% starving, while a communist country doing well = 0% starving. /exageration, BTW.
p_gray99 wrote: So basically you're saying that because past attempts have failed, future attempts will definitely fail. I think you forgot the "/sarcasm" at the end of your post though.
Its not that past attempts have failed, its that ALL past attempts have failed! In the 80's as much as a third of the world governments where communist. Not a SINGLE ONE was a success! Not ONE!
Like whembly said: trying the same thing over and over and expecting different results is the definition of insanity.
Yeah, fine. Communism can't work yet, as I've made clear in the past few pages of the thread. Not until we find some way of having incorruptible leaders, which IMHO is most likely going to mean computers in charge of us. All the previous ones have failed because of corrupt leaders (or 'Murica deciding they don't like democracy in this case, so they're going to invade).
p_gray99 wrote: Yeah, fine. Communism can't work yet, as I've made clear in the past few pages of the thread. Not until we find some way of having incorruptible leaders, which IMHO is most likely going to mean computers in charge of us. All the previous ones have failed because of corrupt leaders (or 'Murica deciding they don't like democracy in this case, so they're going to invade).
There's also the major problem that is the "Human condition", as in, we all want stuff... and with communism, everyone has the same stuff, which basically eliminates all economy
p_gray99 wrote: Yeah, fine. Communism can't work yet, as I've made clear in the past few pages of the thread. Not until we find some way of having incorruptible leaders, which IMHO is most likely going to mean computers in charge of us. All the previous ones have failed because of corrupt leaders (or 'Murica deciding they don't like democracy in this case, so they're going to invade).
There's also the major problem that is the "Human condition", as in, we all want stuff... and with communism, everyone has the same stuff, which basically eliminates all economy
IDK... as strange as it may sound to us, attitudes as strong as this have changed in the past. Slavery used to be fine, Black people were worth less than White people and Women were worthless while the death sentence was fine for stealing a loaf of bread 3 times in a row. I don't think it'd be as big a change as we currently think for people to lose interest in material wealth.
p_gray99 wrote: I think that's more of a difference between democracy and dictatorship than capitalism and communism, though I take your point. But equally, a capitalist country doing well = only 10% starving, while a communist country doing well = 0% starving. /exageration, BTW.
Gonna have to call a big ol' BS on this one. People simply do not 'starve' to death in developed Western nations. We have even had to change the terminology of those lacking food over time, to terms that identify 'those with the wrong kind of food' or 'those who feel hungry', and the latter has even evolved further into 'those who worry about feeling hungry'.
'Food Desert' and 'Food Insecurity' (which is actually a subjective term, based on the individual's perception of their food situation) have replaced words like 'famine' and 'starvation'. Even the word 'malnourished' is now more reflective of people who simply eat the wrong types of food and bad habits in food procurement and food preparation than it is a lack of food.
You would have to struggle to find even .1% of the US population that is starving, and even that tiny percentage is not due to systemic (i.e. government) enforcement like what caused actual starvation under the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. Completely objective measures like percentage of income paid for food over time and food export statistics (S. Africa is very interesting in this respect) simply obliterate your miscellaneous statistic.
I know it's in vogue to bash on the US and the industrialized West in general but your perception of people "starving" is so ludicrously wrong that it doesn't deserve a free pass.
p_gray99 wrote: Yeah, fine. Communism can't work yet, as I've made clear in the past few pages of the thread. Not until we find some way of having incorruptible leaders, which IMHO is most likely going to mean computers in charge of us. All the previous ones have failed because of corrupt leaders (or 'Murica deciding they don't like democracy in this case, so they're going to invade).
There's also the major problem that is the "Human condition", as in, we all want stuff... and with communism, everyone has the same stuff, which basically eliminates all economy
IDK... as strange as it may sound to us, attitudes as strong as this have changed in the past. Slavery used to be fine, Black people were worth less than White people and Women were worthless while the death sentence was fine for stealing a loaf of bread 3 times in a row. I don't think it'd be as big a change as we currently think for people to lose interest in material wealth.
Honestly man, I don't think that those things you pointed out are THAT big of thought changes as our entire economic system would be. I mean, basically the world economy works on "I want that", the proverbial keeping up with the Jones' thing. It's partially why we pay people who can't do real work millions to pretend all day, and play childrens games (actors and athletes).
I can't honestly see a communist type system working, short of the creation of the United Federation of Planets, and even then, I can't really see it working.
sourclams wrote: Gonna have to call a big ol' BS on this one. People simply do not 'starve' to death in developed Western nations. We have even had to change the terminology of those lacking food over time, to terms that identify 'those with the wrong kind of food' or 'those who feel hungry', and the latter has even evolved further into 'those who worry about feeling hungry'.
*sigh*
Some people within your borders have far, far too little considering that they're working full days (in a large number of cases more than your average 9-5) and yet still have barely enough money for food and rent, never mind any kind of pleasure activity. Ok, so they're not dying, but the amount of money that the top 1% has could easily satisfy this without them having to go without their personal cruise liners etc.
And that's only America. Sure, starving people in other countries aren't your fault, they're only starving because America won't lower the massive interest rates on their loans, which are stopping the governments of many countries in Africa from developing. All it would take would be one action from the US government to stop millions of deaths due to starvation. And the reason you don't want to slow the interest is, you guessed it, CAPITALISM!!!
Ok, they're not in your country. They're still starving. And it's still because of your country.
p_gray99 wrote: Yeah, fine. Communism can't work yet, as I've made clear in the past few pages of the thread. Not until we find some way of having incorruptible leaders, which IMHO is most likely going to mean computers in charge of us. All the previous ones have failed because of corrupt leaders (or 'Murica deciding they don't like democracy in this case, so they're going to invade).
There's also the major problem that is the "Human condition", as in, we all want stuff... and with communism, everyone has the same stuff, which basically eliminates all economy
IDK... as strange as it may sound to us, attitudes as strong as this have changed in the past. Slavery used to be fine, Black people were worth less than White people and Women were worthless while the death sentence was fine for stealing a loaf of bread 3 times in a row. I don't think it'd be as big a change as we currently think for people to lose interest in material wealth.
Honestly man, I don't think that those things you pointed out are THAT big of thought changes as our entire economic system would be. I mean, basically the world economy works on "I want that", the proverbial keeping up with the Jones' thing. It's partially why we pay people who can't do real work millions to pretend all day, and play childrens games (actors and athletes).
I can't honestly see a communist type system working, short of the creation of the United Federation of Planets, and even then, I can't really see it working.
Ho no? Surely ideas that you can just treat anyone however you want, so long as they're not part of your tribe, changing to everyone having equal rights is a fairly massive change. People want stuff, sure. People always have done, and as far as we can tell (from past experience, that is) people always will do. Not wanting stuff is an entirely alien concept. And yet, in BC times, not having slavery was just as alien. People always had had slaves, and as far as they could tell (from past experience, that is) people always would have slaves. Yet, in circa 500AD, slavery was banned throughout Europe. Somehow they went from thinking some humans were absolutely worthless and could be killed if they didn't obey your every whim to thinking that all humans had rights and, well, that they were human. All in a few centuries.
It doesn't seem like much now, but it sure as heck was a lot. Change from the unthinkable to the absolute norm in very little time, what's to stop it from happening again?
sourclams wrote: Gonna have to call a big ol' BS on this one. People simply do not 'starve' to death in developed Western nations. We have even had to change the terminology of those lacking food over time, to terms that identify 'those with the wrong kind of food' or 'those who feel hungry', and the latter has even evolved further into 'those who worry about feeling hungry'.
*sigh*
Some people within your borders have far, far too little considering that they're working full days (in a large number of cases more than your average 9-5) and yet still have barely enough money for food and rent, never mind any kind of pleasure activity. Ok, so they're not dying, but the amount of money that the top 1% has could easily satisfy this without them having to go without their personal cruise liners etc.
And that's only America. Sure, starving people in other countries aren't your fault, they're only starving because America won't lower the massive interest rates on their loans, which are stopping the governments of many countries in Africa from developing. All it would take would be one action from the US government to stop millions of deaths due to starvation. And the reason you don't want to slow the interest is, you guessed it, CAPITALISM!!!
Ok, they're not in your country. They're still starving. And it's still because of your country.
It's not because of our country mate. If you look at the poundage of food sent into that continent, you'd realize that it really should be enough to go round as it is... However, it ends up in the hands of the corrupt, and often communist "leaders" of those craphole countries. Lawlessness, piracy and other shenanigans, combined with this apparent drought that's been going on for the last 50 some odd years are what's to blame, not Capitalism.
Are you in college? Or do you actually work for a living?
If you work, I assume that you send whatever extra income that you have past paying for your essential needs to those poor people in developing nations, you do that, right?
Is the computer that you are typing on your own or is it your work computer? If it is your own, why did you buy it? That money that you spent on an unnecessary computer could be vastly better spent by some ONG helping a developing nation, why didn't you send them the money instead?
Humanity is to blame for all human problems, no matter what country we are from, someone will be greedy and want to take. In more civilized countries they take your money or rights, in under developed countries, they take food, and in countries that can't sustain themselves with food they waste money on other things instead.
p_gray99 wrote: Some people within your borders have far, far too little considering that they're working full days (in a large number of cases more than your average 9-5) and yet still have barely enough money for food and rent, never mind any kind of pleasure activity. Ok, so they're not dying, but the amount of money that the top 1% has could easily satisfy this without them having to go without their personal cruise liners etc.
And that's only America. Sure, starving people in other countries aren't your fault, they're only starving because America won't lower the massive interest rates on their loans, which are stopping the governments of many countries in Africa from developing. All it would take would be one action from the US government to stop millions of deaths due to starvation. And the reason you don't want to slow the interest is, you guessed it, CAPITALISM!!!
You said that a flat 10% of America is starving. That is flat wrong. Starvation, i.e. not enough food for people to survive upon, has nothing to do with the GINI coefficient in the affluent West. You can't suddenly make your wrong statement right by claiming OWS talking points.
Also, give me any proof whatsoever that continued poverty in Africa is the result of US/Western nations continuing to maintain Colony-level exploitation. I'm calling BS on that claim as well.
Also, Communist countries contribute far far less in foreign assistance than Capitalist Democracies, so again, your Communist Utopia seems allot less desirable...
Frazzled wrote: I disagree. I'm usually starving by 10.00AM. Oh the evils of capitalism!
You're not starving, you dummy, you're "snack insecure".
On the positive I am now "red beans and rice gifted'
governments of many countries in Africa from developing. All it would take would be one action from the US government to stop millions of deaths due to starvation. And the reason you don't want to slow the interest is, you guessed it, CAPITALISM!!!
We lost 18 in Somalia trying to keep people from using food as a weapon. Where the were you lover boy?
sourclams wrote: Gonna have to call a big ol' BS on this one. People simply do not 'starve' to death in developed Western nations. We have even had to change the terminology of those lacking food over time, to terms that identify 'those with the wrong kind of food' or 'those who feel hungry', and the latter has even evolved further into 'those who worry about feeling hungry'.
*sigh*
Some people within your borders have far, far too little considering that they're working full days (in a large number of cases more than your average 9-5) and yet still have barely enough money for food and rent, never mind any kind of pleasure activity. Ok, so they're not dying, but the amount of money that the top 1% has could easily satisfy this without them having to go without their personal cruise liners etc.
And that's only America. Sure, starving people in other countries aren't your fault, they're only starving because America won't lower the massive interest rates on their loans, which are stopping the governments of many countries in Africa from developing. All it would take would be one action from the US government to stop millions of deaths due to starvation. And the reason you don't want to slow the interest is, you guessed it, CAPITALISM!!!
Ok, they're not in your country. They're still starving. And it's still because of your country.
Bull gak!
US is numero uno in giving out aid... do some research first before making such a blanket statement.
Well, it seems I'm the only communist here, so I'll do my best to answer all your arguments.
Ensis Ferrae wrote:It's not because of our country mate. If you look at the poundage of food sent into that continent, you'd realize that it really should be enough to go round as it is... However, it ends up in the hands of the corrupt, and often communist "leaders" of those craphole countries. Lawlessness, piracy and other shenanigans, combined with this apparent drought that's been going on for the last 50 some odd years are what's to blame, not Capitalism.
PhantomViper wrote:Are you in college? Or do you actually work for a living?
If you work, I assume that you send whatever extra income that you have past paying for your essential needs to those poor people in developing nations, you do that, right?
Is the computer that you are typing on your own or is it your work computer? If it is your own, why did you buy it? That money that you spent on an unnecessary computer could be vastly better spent by some ONG helping a developing nation, why didn't you send them the money instead?
I'm at a private school. So no, I don't earn money, and I don't have money "stolen" in the form of taxes nor do I feel that the government isn't providing enough from all the taxes I give them. I do, however, have a vested interest in thinking that capitalism is good as without it I wouldn't have anywhere near as good an education. And yet, I'm communist.
As for my computer, it's the family computer. Yes, the money spent on it could have gone to charity. On the other hand, I could use the internet to convince tens of other people to give money to charity or an equally good cause (e.g. communism) and thus create an even greater overall benefit to the human race.
And I do in fact give about 10% of the money I earn (from doing small jobs around the house etc.) to charity. I intend to increase this amount, but at the moment my miniscule funds would make very little difference anyway.
Lord Magnus wrote:Humanity is to blame for all human problems, no matter what country we are from, someone will be greedy and want to take. In more civilized countries they take your money or rights, in under developed countries, they take food, and in countries that can't sustain themselves with food they waste money on other things instead.
Yup. And I hope that in the future we'll be able to change that. I reckon communism is one of the steps in that process.
sourclams wrote:You said that a flat 10% of America is starving. That is flat wrong. Starvation, i.e. not enough food for people to survive upon, has nothing to do with the GINI coefficient in the affluent West. You can't suddenly make your wrong statement right by claiming OWS talking points.
I did explain the meaning of exaggeration multiple times didn't I? Or was it just my imagination? I'm fairly sure I did, but maybe not...
sourclams wrote:Also, give me any proof whatsoever that continued poverty in Africa is the result of US/Western nations continuing to maintain Colony-level exploitation. I'm calling BS on that claim as well.
I never said Colony-level exploitation! You're attacking an argument I never made! And proof? How the heck are you meant to prove something like that anyway? Asking for the impossible and saying I must be wrong when I don't provide it is plain idiotic!
PhantomViper wrote:Also, Communist countries contribute far far less in foreign assistance than Capitalist Democracies, so again, your Communist Utopia seems a lot less desirable...
As I said before, communist countries are often the poorest, and the current communist countries are barely the best possible examples of communism that you could have. What's more, the communist countries aren't the ones that are helping destroy the countries in the first place by giving them outrageous loan agreements.
And finally, China isn't giving much foreign aid, but instead it's creating work in some of those countries by hiring local workers to work for them (e.g. in African iron-ore mines), which helps their economy massively and lasting long-term despite not being counted as foreign aid.
Frazzled wrote:
governments of many countries in Africa from developing. All it would take would be one action from the US government to stop millions of deaths due to starvation. And the reason you don't want to slow the interest is, you guessed it, CAPITALISM!!!
We lost 18 in Somalia trying to keep people from using food as a weapon. Where the were you lover boy?
In school, too young to join the armed forces. And in any case, I'm English. And 18 lives isn't that big a number given the number of people starving.
whembly wrote:Bull gak!
US is numero uno in giving out aid... do some research first before making such a blanket statement.
I couldn't help but notice that, while the US gives a large amount of money to foreign aid, it still amounts to less than 1% of the GDP. And of course, it has a high population and high GDP per capita, so it's perfectly reasonable to assume that in real terms it's not the biggest giver. And even if it was, what does that mean? It's only in comparison to other, relatively similar countries. If the US gave next to nothing and all other countries gave nothing, that wouldn't make the US' next to nothing any better, just because the others are worse.
Many in Africa live on less than $1 per day, while in America people doing that would be outrageous. If the money was better spread out, then everyone could live happily and not have to worry about food. Your foreign aid may do something to help this happen, but not nearly enough.
So in other words, you're a hypocrite typing commie nonsense on a computer while you go to private school, talking gak about how another country doesn't do enough THAT YOU"RE NOT A CITIZEN OF. Its rare to interact with someone who's hypocrisy quotient is as high as mine. Good to meet you.
I did not imply that there are no starving people in Africa, merely that the lawless: pirates and warlords, etc. Hijack many of the food shipments that are sent over there.
which is, again, not the fault of America, nor that of capitalist nations.
I couldn't help but notice that, while the US gives a large amount of money to foreign aid, it still amounts to less than 1% of the GDP. And of course, it has a high population and high GDP per capita, so it's perfectly reasonable to assume that in real terms it's not the biggest giver. And even if it was, what does that mean? It's only in comparison to other, relatively similar countries. If the US gave next to nothing and all other countries gave nothing, that wouldn't make the US' next to nothing any better, just because the others are worse.
Many in Africa live on less than $1 per day, while in America people doing that would be outrageous. If the money was better spread out, then everyone could live happily and not have to worry about food. Your foreign aid may do something to help this happen, but not nearly enough.
Why are you comparing it by GDP... in absolute $$$ we give out a gak ton of money. That's all it should matter... otherwise, you're a sanctimonious leftist liberal that believes you know what's best for everyone.
Another question, why should we give a feth? It's like anything we do, we get criticized as not doing enough (more aid) or we shouldn't get involved (Iraq). You know what? It's people with your attitude that is driving the US folks into the isolationist mindset.
Frazzled wrote: So in other words, you're a hypocrite typing commie nonsense on a computer while you go to private school, talking gak about how another country doesn't do enough THAT YOU"RE NOT A CITIZEN OF. Its rare to interact with someone who's hypocrisy quotient is as high as mine. Good to meet you.
Uh... right. 1) How am I a hypocrite? I go to a private school, but that's my parents' decision. 2) Nonsense? They're simply arguments to counter those against me. 3) I may not be a citizen of America, but they're the ones that brought up the topic of its foreign aid, and why would I need to be a citizen to comment on its budget anyway? In fact, the only thing that you can tell from me not being a citizen is that I have less of a bias towards America. 4) Good to meet you too
Ensis Ferrae wrote:I did not imply that there are no starving people in Africa, merely that the lawless: pirates and warlords, etc. Hijack many of the food shipments that are sent over there. which is, again, not the fault of America, nor that of capitalist nations.
I was simply arguing against the point someone made that "there aren't starving people", which seemed darned ludicrous to me.
whembly wrote:Why are you comparing it by GDP... in absolute $$$ we give out a gak ton of money. That's all it should matter... otherwise, you're a sanctimonious leftist liberal that believes you know what's best for everyone.
Another question, why should we give a feth? It's like anything we do, we get criticized as not doing enough (more aid) or we shouldn't get involved (Iraq). You know what? It's people with your attitude that is driving the US folks into the isolationist mindset.
It's not about how much you give, it's about what percentage you give. I'm not religious, but Jesus supposedly asked his disciples who had given more money: the rich man giving a gold coin to charity or the beggar giving his only copper piece. In his eyes it was the beggar, which pretty much anyone thinking logically about it would agree with.
whembly wrote:Why are you comparing it by GDP... in absolute $$$ we give out a gak ton of money. That's all it should matter... otherwise, you're a sanctimonious leftist liberal that believes you know what's best for everyone.
Another question, why should we give a feth? It's like anything we do, we get criticized as not doing enough (more aid) or we shouldn't get involved (Iraq). You know what? It's people with your attitude that is driving the US folks into the isolationist mindset.
It's not about how much you give, it's about what percentage you give. I'm not religious, but Jesus supposedly asked his disciples who had given more money: the rich man giving a gold coin to charity or the beggar giving his only copper piece. In his eyes it was the beggar, which is morally sound in almost anyone's eyes.
Son... live your life a little longer...
The issues with US aids isn't that we're not giving enough... it's what is being done with it on the ground. More aid won't help.... What most of the places need is a shift in strategy. Africa for example could be the pre-eminent bread basket of the world, if only the economic/social conditions allows for modernization.
It's not black and white.
If you think that because our aids amount isn't enough because some other smaller country gives out more per GDP... then, there's nothing I can say that'll change your mind.
Plus, I resent your implication that we're morally inferior here... I have a much more cheeky response, but the MODS would bring the hammer down.
Back to OP: Western nations in general gives out MUCH more in aid than communist countries... it's not even close.
The issues with US aids isn't that we're not giving enough... it's what is being done with it on the ground. More aid won't help.... What most of the places need is a shift in strategy. Africa for example could be the pre-eminent bread basket of the world, if only the economic/social conditions allows for modernization.
It's not black and white.
If you think that because our aids amount isn't enough because some other smaller country gives out more per GDP... then, there's nothing I can say that'll change your mind.
Plus, I resent your implication that we're morally inferior here... I have a much more cheeky response, but the MODS would bring the hammer down.
Back to OP: Western nations in general gives out MUCH more in aid than communist countries... it's not even close.
I agree that the aid has to be distributed well, and with the current system simply giving more wouldn't work well enough. If the entire world was a single communist state, I doubt those problems would exist. I am not saying that we should all turn communist right now; as previously stated we're not in the position to do so.
I'm sorry if I implied that I was morally superior to you, I was simply trying to back the point that it's more about what percentage of your money you give rather than how much. Post edited.
Why on earth do you think a communist state would be better? Again, no communist state has actually been beneficial to anyone but the party elite. Everyone ends up in suckville.
Frazzled wrote: Why on earth do you think a communist state would be better? Again, no communist state has actually been beneficial to anyone but the party elite. Everyone ends up in suckville.
You have an excellent habit of ignoring history.
I'm not talking about which is least likely to cause corruption, I'm talking about which system would exist in an ideal world, which would almost certainly be communism or very close to this, as it causes greatest happiness for the greatest number.
I never said we should implement communism before we have a secure system of stopping the government from being corrupt, in fact I've stressed multiple times that currently it's only theoretical and we only stand a chance of communism working with either better technology or a completely different mindset for everyone involved.
People are continuously saying that I'm wrong because communism wouldn't work right now; they're not actually attacking any of the arguments I've made.
So basically you're saying that because past attempts have failed, future attempts will definitely fail. I think you forgot the "/sarcasm" at the end of your post though.
Dude...
This logic could just as easily be applied to the American political system...
So basically you're saying that because past attempts have failed, future attempts will definitely fail. I think you forgot the "/sarcasm" at the end of your post though.
Dude...
This logic could just as easily be applied to the American political system...
p_gray99 wrote: And 18 lives isn't that big a number given the number of people starving.
Mate, don't you know about the International Exchange Rate on Human Lives? An average American's life is worth about 800 ordinary second world persons. A blonde haired little white girl is as valuable as 750,000 starving Africans.
governments of many countries in Africa from developing. All it would take would be one action from the US government to stop millions of deaths due to starvation. And the reason you don't want to slow the interest is, you guessed it, CAPITALISM!!!
We lost 18 in Somalia trying to keep people from using food as a weapon. Where the were you lover boy?
Where the feth were you, Frazzled? You sure as gak weren't in one of the Blackhawks. Better men than you lost or risked their lives in that conflict, so how about not claiming credit for their sacrifice, eh?
strybjorn Grimskull wrote: Marx was one person no one person is %100 correct all the time that's why you listen to the majority not the minority.
Communism, by its own definition can not be a dictatorship.
How would you make the transition from a Capitalist State into a Communist State without the dictatorship part then?
Sorry it took so long to get back to you.
That's simple MAKE SURE THE PEOPLE WANT THE CHANGE (as i have said in almost every post) if the people want the change then they will vote for the communist party of there country, and if they don't want the change then they wont and there country wont be communist party in charge. Thus dictatorship is avoided.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: Why on earth do you think a communist state would be better? Again, no communist state has actually been beneficial to anyone but the party elite. Everyone ends up in suckville.
You have an excellent habit of ignoring history.
THERE HAS BEEN NO COMMUNIST COUNTRY'S EVER.
They have all been dictatorships (not communism) and they have put there own needs above that of the people (not communism) and the people have not had a say (defenitly not communism).
p_gray99 wrote:I'm not talking about which is least likely to cause corruption, I'm talking about which system would exist in an ideal world, which would almost certainly be communism or very close to this, as it causes greatest happiness for the greatest number.
Millions of people killed by Stalin, thrown in Gulags, killed by Mao, etc. etc. just called, they'd love to have a nice chat with you about how happy they were with their communist systems.
strybjorn Grimskull wrote:
THERE HAS BEEN TO COMMUNIST COUNTRY'S EVER.
it's *two
Vietnam, USSR, China, Democratic People's republic of Congo, DPRK (N. Korea)
yep... seems like more than 2 countries on that list that were/are definitely communists.
As many have pointed out, with the human condition being what it is, and probably always will be, communism has never, and will never work. Another way it would work, is if we were all implanted with a micro chip at birth, and received all our education, and directions from the Hive.. but that wouldn't end well now would it?
p_gray99 wrote:I'm not talking about which is least likely to cause corruption, I'm talking about which system would exist in an ideal world, which would almost certainly be communism or very close to this, as it causes greatest happiness for the greatest number.
Millions of people killed by Stalin, thrown in Gulags, killed by Mao, etc. etc. just called, they'd love to have a nice chat with you about how happy they were with their communist systems.
strybjorn Grimskull wrote: THERE HAS BEEN TO COMMUNIST COUNTRY'S EVER.
it's *two
Vietnam, USSR, China, Democratic People's republic of Congo, DPRK (N. Korea)
yep... seems like more than 2 countries on that list that were/are definitely communists.
As many have pointed out, with the human condition being what it is, and probably always will be, communism has never, and will never work. Another way it would work, is if we were all implanted with a micro chip at birth, and received all our education, and directions from the Hive.. but that wouldn't end well now would it?
My apologies i ment to put NO communist countries.
Vietnam-dictatorshipo USSR-almost but Stalin came along China-trying but failing (possibly socialist) DMRC-dictatorship N Korea-fascist
strybjorn Grimskull wrote:
THERE HAS BEEN TO COMMUNIST COUNTRY'S EVER.
it's *two
Vietnam, USSR, China, Democratic People's republic of Congo, DPRK (N. Korea)
yep... seems like more than 2 countries on that list that were/are definitely communists.
Right, here's a little test.
Does it have a government or state?
If the answer is yes, then it isn't communist.
my argument to that is, that many of those governments claimed to follow the communist "doctrines" so while yes, they are not "truly" communist as the theory expounds, but they are the best thing that has come to date.
my argument to that is, that many of those governments claimed to follow the communist "doctrines" so while yes, they are not "truly" communist as the theory expounds, but they are the best thing that has come to date.
Had Cuba not been subject to a trade embargo for half a century it would have been interesting to see how it had turned out.
my argument to that is, that many of those governments claimed to follow the communist "doctrines" so while yes, they are not "truly" communist as the theory expounds, but they are the best thing that has come to date.
Had Cuba not been subject to a trade embargo for half a century it would have been interesting to see how it had turned out.
US only embargo Cuba...
Cuba is free to deal with other countries (mostly central/south American countries).
Are you saying that Cuba would be any different had the embargo never been in place?
my argument to that is, that many of those governments claimed to follow the communist "doctrines" so while yes, they are not "truly" communist as the theory expounds, but they are the best thing that has come to date.
Had Cuba not been subject to a trade embargo for half a century it would have been interesting to see how it had turned out.
US only embargo Cuba...
Cuba is free to deal with other countries (mostly central/south American countries).
Are you saying that Cuba would be any different had the embargo never been in place?
Cuba is a shithole for a reason... and it's NOT because of US's policies...
Well according to Amnesty International “The restrictions imposed by the embargo help to deprive Cuba of vital access to medicines, new scientific and medical technology, food, chemical water treatment and electricity.”
Yet still Cuba churn out some of the best doctors in the world.
Of course had the embargo not been in place, or had ended with the fall of the Soviet Union, Cuba would be a different place. Are you saying that it wouldn't? I'm not claiming it would be a utopian ideal, merely that with billions more in the economy it might have been a nicer place for it's citizens.
my argument to that is, that many of those governments claimed to follow the communist "doctrines" so while yes, they are not "truly" communist as the theory expounds, but they are the best thing that has come to date.
Had Cuba not been subject to a trade embargo for half a century it would have been interesting to see how it had turned out.
US only embargo Cuba...
Cuba is free to deal with other countries (mostly central/south American countries).
Are you saying that Cuba would be any different had the embargo never been in place?
Cuba is a shithole for a reason... and it's NOT because of US's policies...
Well according to Amnesty International “The restrictions imposed by the embargo help to deprive Cuba of vital access to medicines, new scientific and medical technology, food, chemical water treatment and electricity.”
Really? Amnesty International? That same organization that disproportionately criticized free democratic nations over authoritarian nations with grave human rights abuses? During the Cold War, this group was boss. Now? It's just another leftist organization in the same ilk as Greenpeace... gak, I remember when they refused to condemn the fething South Africa's apartheid regime!
Yet still Cuba churn out some of the best doctors in the world.
Erm... by what standards? They're known for competence... and practicing with low wages. But I wouldn't consider them collectively any better than most Western Docs.
Of course had the embargo not been in place, or had ended with the fall of the Soviet Union, Cuba would be a different place. Are you saying that it wouldn't? I'm not claiming it would be a utopian ideal, merely that with billions more in the economy it might have been a nicer place for it's citizens.
Naw... those in powah (Castro, et el.) would be richer... again, Cuba is doing "business" with the REST OF THE WORLD. American isn't the reason why it's a shithole.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Cheesecat wrote: Yeah, isn't Cuba supposed to have good healthcare and education or something?
Really? Amnesty International? That same organization that disproportionately criticized free democratic nations over authoritarian nations with grave human rights abuses? During the Cold War, this group was boss. Now? It's just another leftist organization in the same ilk as Greenpeace... gak, I remember when they refused to condemn the fething South Africa's apartheid regime!
Amnesty are one of the most respected charities in the world and have won the Nobel Peace prize. Also, do you have a source on them refusing to condemn apartheid, I can't find any reports of such behaviour.
Yet still Cuba churn out some of the best doctors in the world.
Erm... by what standards? They're known for competence... and practicing with low wages. But I wouldn't consider them collectively any better than most Western Docs.
And yet Cuba, whilst embroiled in poverty, has higher life expectancy and lower infant mortality than the U.S. Seriously the Cuba healthcare system is well regarded around the world, and shames quite a lot of first world countries, even without access to modern medicine and equipment.
p_gray99 wrote:I'm not talking about which is least likely to cause corruption, I'm talking about which system would exist in an ideal world, which would almost certainly be communism or very close to this, as it causes greatest happiness for the greatest number.
Millions of people killed by Stalin, thrown in Gulags, killed by Mao, etc. etc. just called, they'd love to have a nice chat with you about how happy they were with their communist systems.
Just because communism isn't a perfect world doesn't mean that a perfect world wouldn't be communist. Please use basic logic before your next post.
Really? Amnesty International? That same organization that disproportionately criticized free democratic nations over authoritarian nations with grave human rights abuses? During the Cold War, this group was boss. Now? It's just another leftist organization in the same ilk as Greenpeace... gak, I remember when they refused to condemn the fething South Africa's apartheid regime!
Amnesty are one of the most respected charities in the world and have won the Nobel Peace prize. Also, do you have a source on them refusing to condemn apartheid, I can't find any reports of such behaviour.
It's something I remember'ed seeing on CNN years ago... hence, why I said "I remember...".
Yet still Cuba churn out some of the best doctors in the world.
Erm... by what standards? They're known for competence... and practicing with low wages. But I wouldn't consider them collectively any better than most Western Docs.
And yet Cuba, whilst embroiled in poverty, has higher life expectancy and lower infant mortality than the U.S. Seriously the Cuba healthcare system is well regarded around the world, and shames quite a lot of first world countries, even without access to modern medicine and equipment.
The problem with Cuba (like most dictator system) is that the GOVERNMENT controls the reporting mechanism. Check out the wiki... look at the Contrasting views on Cuba's health system section. it's a good start.
EDIT: forgive me... I'm sleep deprived and feel like I'm repeating myself...
p_gray99 wrote: Just because communism isn't a perfect world doesn't mean that a perfect world wouldn't be communist. Please use basic logic before your next post.
That would be true if everyone were actually equal. Ain't the case.
Well, let's have a look at what it says is wrong with their healthcare.
The preceding study also pointed to problems within Cuba's health system, including:
Low pay of doctors.
Poor facilities—buildings in poor state of repair and mostly outdated.
Poor provision of equipment.
Frequent absence of essential drugs.
Concern regarding freedom of choice both for patient and doctor.
Low pay of Doctors: Probably because their economy's a mess, due to the US blockade.
Poor facilities: With that small an economy, I doubt they could do all that much better, TBH.
Poor provision of equipment: Well, that's quite possible due to the economy, plus the fact they can't get the equipment in from the US for some reason.
Frequent absence of essential drugs. E.g., those that are expensive and/or provided by the US. I wonder why?
Freedom of choice: Finally, a reasonable point. Still, I'd prefer a good healthcare system with little freedom of choice than a bad healthcare system, TBH.
p_gray99 wrote: Just because communism isn't a perfect world doesn't mean that a perfect world wouldn't be communist. Please use basic logic before your next post.
That would be true if everyone were actually equal. Ain't the case.
And why do you say everyone's not equal? Honestly, I'm curious.
If you're going to say intelligence, then quite a bit of that is down to genes, which are barely your fault if you happen to have bad ones.
If you're going to say it's about how hard people work, then it's a good point. However:
People who are first-born often do far better than those born 2nd or later in their family. Now, that's a strong connection that shows that how hard you work isn't all down to you. Some families also generally are stronger willed than others, whether it's from upbringing or genes. But what I'm trying to say is that it's random chance where you're born and what genes you have. And perhaps people have some amount of choice over how willful they are, though personally I don't think so.
So basically, how strong-willed, how intelligent you are, it's all down to luck (from our perspectives at least). And you can't say one person is worth more than another because they were luckier.
p_gray99 wrote: Well, let's have a look at what it says is wrong with their healthcare.
The preceding study also pointed to problems within Cuba's health system, including:
Low pay of doctors.
Poor facilities—buildings in poor state of repair and mostly outdated.
Poor provision of equipment.
Frequent absence of essential drugs.
Concern regarding freedom of choice both for patient and doctor.
Low pay of Doctors: Probably because their economy's a mess, due to the US blockade.
Poor facilities: With that small an economy, I doubt they could do all that much better, TBH.
Poor provision of equipment: Well, that's quite possible due to the economy, plus the fact they can't get the equipment in from the US for some reason.
Frequent absence of essential drugs. E.g., those that are expensive and/or provided by the US. I wonder why?
Freedom of choice: Finally, a reasonable point. Still, I'd prefer a good healthcare system with little freedom of choice than a bad healthcare system, TBH.
So... are you really saying that Cuba is "like the way they are" because of the US embargo?
Don't you know that there are non-American companies that provides/manufactor top notch medicine and equipment?
Let me help you...
Seimens is a massive German company that provides state of the Art medical equipment...
GlaxoSmithKline is a British pharmacutical company that's probably numero uno in their respective fields...
And so on...
What's stopping Cuba from purchasing stuff from these companies???
Also... never, EVER take any statistics from a Communist/Dictatorial country. THEY control the reporting of said statistics.
whembly wrote: So... are you really saying that Cuba is "like the way they are" because of the US embargo?
Don't you know that there are non-American companies that provides/manufactor top notch medicine and equipment?
Let me help you...
Seimens is a massive German company that provides state of the Art medical equipment...
GlaxoSmithKline is a British pharmacutical company that's probably numero uno in their respective fields...
And so on...
What's stopping Cuba from purchasing stuff from these companies???
Also... never, EVER take any statistics from a Communist/Dictatorial country. THEY control the reporting of said statistics.
No, I'm saying it's like the way it is partially because of the US embargo. I'm also saying that it does rather well considering it's not a 1st world country.
As for buying drugs, I'm not an expert in this field, but from what I know, a company will do research until it finds a drug. It will then patent the drug, so only that company can produce it, allowing it to make the money back that was spent on all that research, although there will be no competition for that exact drug. So it's perfectly reasonable to assume there will be some drugs only produced by US companies that can't export them to Cuba.
As for the Statistics, we can at least assume that they are based on fact, which would still make the country far better in healthcare to most comparable countries.
Half of that article is claims of bias against non-western countries. The other half is claims of bias against western countries. Notice all of these claims originate from countries heavily criticised for human rights abuses such as Israel, China and the USA. I fear you may have been misled regarding apartheid, AI were a massive part of the anti-apartheid movement and often provided reports for the UN.
The problem with Cuba (like most dictator system) is that the GOVERNMENT controls the reporting mechanism. Check out the wiki... look at the Contrasting views on Cuba's health system section. it's a good start.
You cannot make the claim that the figures of the World Bank, or the CIA World Factbook, or the WHO are misrepresentations without some sort of evidence.
If we look at the summary of criticisms.
The preceding study also pointed to problems within Cuba's health system, including:
Low pay of doctors.
Poor facilities—buildings in poor state of repair and mostly outdated.
Poor provision of equipment.
Frequent absence of essential drugs.
Concern regarding freedom of choice both for patient and doctor.
A lot can be contributed, at least in part, to the embargo. And they all make it even more remarkable that the statistics are so high for their healthcare system, higher in every measure than the US, and light years ahead of countries of similar economic means.
whembly wrote: So... are you really saying that Cuba is "like the way they are" because of the US embargo?
Don't you know that there are non-American companies that provides/manufactor top notch medicine and equipment?
Let me help you...
Seimens is a massive German company that provides state of the Art medical equipment...
GlaxoSmithKline is a British pharmacutical company that's probably numero uno in their respective fields...
And so on...
What's stopping Cuba from purchasing stuff from these companies???
Also... never, EVER take any statistics from a Communist/Dictatorial country. THEY control the reporting of said statistics.
No, I'm saying it's like the way it is partially because of the US embargo. I'm also saying that it does rather well considering it's not a 1st world country.
K... I disagree...
As for buying drugs, I'm not an expert in this field, but from what I know, a company will do research until it finds a drug. It will then patent the drug, so only that company can produce it, allowing it to make the money back that was spent on all that research, although there will be no competition for that exact drug. So it's perfectly reasonable to assume there will be some drugs only produced by US companies that can't export them to Cuba.
There are many nations who will make generics of those meds... check out India. They can't sell it within the US.... but, they certainly CAN sell it elsewhere.
As for the Statistics, we can at least assume that they are based on fact, which would still make the country far better in healthcare to most comparable countries.
1) I'd be willing to bet that they're not based on fact
2) Cuba is ran by a dictator
3) These "statistics" are used for propaganda purposes.
4) As a rule... NEVER treat statistic as gospel. This is what I do for a living... you can take the same dataset and draft different statistical models to support many assertations.
The problem with Cuba (like most dictator system) is that the GOVERNMENT controls the reporting mechanism. Check out the wiki... look at the Contrasting views on Cuba's health system section. it's a good start.
You cannot make the claim that the figures of the World Bank, or the CIA World Factbook, or the WHO are misrepresentations without some sort of evidence.
Oh... I missed this bit.
Tell me... how are the World Bank, CIA World Factbooks or WHO getting their data?? Are they actually on the ground in Cuba surveying the records? Or is the Cuban government telling these fine organizations what the datasets are?
p_gray99 wrote: And why do you say everyone's not equal? Honestly, I'm curious.
Because we're not.
You might be smarter than me. You might be more athletically capable. You might be more attractive. You might be more funny. You might have a larger capacity for work and a higher tolerance for hardship. You might have more ambition and willpower. You might have fewer bad habits and phobias. You might have a longer life expectancy.
It has nothing to do with 'worth,' and everything to do with the fact that we're a competitive species, and there's no utopia where there won't be something to compete over.
4) As a rule... NEVER treat statistic as gospel. This is what I do for a living... you can take the same dataset and draft different statistical models to support many assertations.
Then why don't the CIA do that? There is no love lost between them and Cuba, and yet still the Cubans rank better on Infant mortality.
4) As a rule... NEVER treat statistic as gospel. This is what I do for a living... you can take the same dataset and draft different statistical models to support many assertations.
Then why don't the CIA do that? There is no love lost between them and Cuba, and yet still the Cubans rank better on Infant mortality.
LOL... that's the public arm of the CIA... these aren't the same people who get's clandestine information... are you implying that the CIA would have covert operations to verify these data points? Or, do you think it's possible that they're only reporting the same data set that's also given to WHO and other organizations?
Look, I've met Cuban refugees... so, I'm told straight from the horses mouth that what "we see" regarding their healthcare is VASTLY different than what they know.
p_gray99 wrote: And why do you say everyone's not equal? Honestly, I'm curious.
Because we're not.
You might be smarter than me. You might be more athletically capable. You might be more attractive. You might be more funny. You might have a larger capacity for work and a higher tolerance for hardship. You might have more ambition and willpower. You might have fewer bad habits and phobias. You might have a longer life expectancy.
It has nothing to do with 'worth,' and everything to do with the fact that we're a competitive species, and there's no utopia where there won't be something to compete over.
I agree people are different. But I don't see how being luckier than someone else means you deserve to have more than them, be it in money or simply not starving to death.
p_gray99 wrote: I agree people are different. But I don't see how being luckier than someone else means you deserve to have more than them, be it in money or simply not starving to death.
And I don't buy that all or even most success is the result of luck.
whembly wrote: LOL... that's the public arm of the CIA... these aren't the same people who get's clandestine information... are you implying that the CIA would have covert operations to verify these data points? Or, do you think it's possible that they're only reporting the same data set that's also given to WHO and other organizations?
Look, I've met Cuban refugees... so, I'm told straight from the horses mouth that what "we see" regarding their healthcare is VASTLY different than what they know.
I see that you've got a nice lot of evidence to support those claims, you've spoken to some people and there's a website that could have been made by anyone on a whim. Sure, we don't know what the healthcare is actually like. But that doesn't mean it's definitely terrible.
p_gray99 wrote: I agree people are different. But I don't see how being luckier than someone else means you deserve to have more than them, be it in money or simply not starving to death.
And I don't buy that all or even most success is the result of luck.
p_gray99 wrote:If you're going to say intelligence, then quite a bit of that is down to genes, which are barely your fault if you happen to have bad ones.
If you're going to say it's about how hard people work, then it's a good point. However:
People who are first-born often do far better than those born 2nd or later in their family. Now, that's a strong connection that shows that how hard you work isn't all down to you. Some families also generally are stronger willed than others, whether it's from upbringing or genes. But what I'm trying to say is that it's random chance where you're born and what genes you have. And perhaps people have some amount of choice over how willful they are, though personally I don't think so.
So basically, how strong-willed, how intelligent you are, it's all down to luck (from our perspectives at least). And you can't say one person is worth more than another because they were luckier.
So how is it not luck that people are more intelligent or strong-willed than others?
4) As a rule... NEVER treat statistic as gospel. This is what I do for a living... you can take the same dataset and draft different statistical models to support many assertations.
Then why don't the CIA do that? There is no love lost between them and Cuba, and yet still the Cubans rank better on Infant mortality.
LOL... that's the public arm of the CIA... these aren't the same people who get's clandestine information... are you implying that the CIA would have covert operations to verify these data points? Or, do you think it's possible that they're only reporting the same data set that's also given to WHO and other organizations?
Look, I've met Cuban refugees... so, I'm told straight from the horses mouth that what "we see" regarding their healthcare is VASTLY different than what they know.
Of course they have better things to be doing in Cuba than measuring infant mortality (torturing people for instance ). But the UN, the Pan American Health Organisation and the World Health Organisation all spend time studying the Cuban system, not to mention a lot of academics from this side of the pond. It isn't a closed shop where we have to take people's word for it. Cuba send more doctors overseas than anywhere else and those doctors are always highly regarded. It seems the primary problem for the country is one of poverty, which was the intention of the sanctions and has been their result.
Those pictures are pretty shocking, but the website displays such overt bias that it can't really be classed as useful, hell I've been in British hospitals that, while nowhere near that bad, you could make a similar website about. Bear in mind that Cuba has similar GDP per capita to Thailand, and could you imagine the state of the hospitals in Thailand.
I keep seeing people talk about the failure of existing modern communist countries. This literally cannot be true, because there has not been a sngle modern communist nation YET.
Let's get the terminology straight.
A COMMUNIST nation is one where the people as a whole - NOT the government - control the means of production. Imagine, say, a country where every person has shares in every company, and (unlike in America) are kept fully informed by the company as to what they are doing so that when the people vote their shares it MEANS something.
A SOCIALIST nation is one where the government owns all the means of production. This is the type of system that the average American quite sloppily calls 'Communist' even though it isn't. But even the poster child for sponsoring Communism, the Soviet Union, made the distinction quite clear in the proper name of their country - the Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics.
So... we still do not know how a proper Communist nation would function. No one has ever managed to create one. The closest that has been managed is a Socialist government-run system... which generally seems to either fail spectacularly or reform itself into am autocratic semi-capitolist system like China and Vietnam.
governments of many countries in Africa from developing. All it would take would be one action from the US government to stop millions of deaths due to starvation. And the reason you don't want to slow the interest is, you guessed it, CAPITALISM!!!
We lost 18 in Somalia trying to keep people from using food as a weapon. Where the were you lover boy?
Where the feth were you, Frazzled? You sure as gak weren't in one of the Blackhawks. Better men than you lost or risked their lives in that conflict, so how about not claiming credit for their sacrifice, eh?
Just a thought.
I'm not the one claiming the US needs to do more Hondo. Keep up kemosabe.
p_gray99 wrote:I'm not talking about which is least likely to cause corruption, I'm talking about which system would exist in an ideal world, which would almost certainly be communism or very close to this, as it causes greatest happiness for the greatest number.
Millions of people killed by Stalin, thrown in Gulags, killed by Mao, etc. etc. just called, they'd love to have a nice chat with you about how happy they were with their communist systems.
strybjorn Grimskull wrote:
THERE HAS BEEN TO COMMUNIST COUNTRY'S EVER.
it's *two
Vietnam, USSR, China, Democratic People's republic of Congo, DPRK (N. Korea)
yep... seems like more than 2 countries on that list that were/are definitely communists.
As many have pointed out, with the human condition being what it is, and probably always will be, communism has never, and will never work. Another way it would work, is if we were all implanted with a micro chip at birth, and received all our education, and directions from the Hive.. but that wouldn't end well now would it?
My apologies i ment to put NO communist countries.
Vietnam-dictatorshipo
USSR-almost but Stalin came along
China-trying but failing (possibly socialist)
DMRC-dictatorship
N Korea-fascist
(i have since updated my comment)
Hungary
Poland
Romania
East Germany
Yugoslavia
Cambodia
Laos
Nicaragua
Cuba
Vulcan wrote: I keep seeing people talk about the failure of existing modern communist countries. This literally cannot be true, because there has not been a sngle modern communist nation YET.
Let's get the terminology straight.
A COMMUNIST nation is one where the people as a whole - NOT the government - control the means of production. Imagine, say, a country where every person has shares in every company, and (unlike in America) are kept fully informed by the company as to what they are doing so that when the people vote their shares it MEANS something.
A SOCIALIST nation is one where the government owns all the means of production. This is the type of system that the average American quite sloppily calls 'Communist' even though it isn't. But even the poster child for sponsoring Communism, the Soviet Union, made the distinction quite clear in the proper name of their country - the Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics.
So... we still do not know how a proper Communist nation would function. No one has ever managed to create one. The closest that has been managed is a Socialist government-run system... which generally seems to either fail spectacularly or reform itself into am autocratic semi-capitolist system like China and Vietnam.
Ahhhhhh. The "No True Scotsman" defence, how I've missed you!
governments of many countries in Africa from developing. All it would take would be one action from the US government to stop millions of deaths due to starvation. And the reason you don't want to slow the interest is, you guessed it, CAPITALISM!!!
We lost 18 in Somalia trying to keep people from using food as a weapon. Where the were you lover boy?
Where the feth were you, Frazzled? You sure as gak weren't in one of the Blackhawks. Better men than you lost or risked their lives in that conflict, so how about not claiming credit for their sacrifice, eh?
Just a thought.
I'm not the one claiming the US needs to do more Hondo. Keep up kemosabe.
p_gray99 wrote:I'm not talking about which is least likely to cause corruption, I'm talking about which system would exist in an ideal world, which would almost certainly be communism or very close to this, as it causes greatest happiness for the greatest number.
Millions of people killed by Stalin, thrown in Gulags, killed by Mao, etc. etc. just called, they'd love to have a nice chat with you about how happy they were with their communist systems.
strybjorn Grimskull wrote:
THERE HAS BEEN TO COMMUNIST COUNTRY'S EVER.
it's *two
Vietnam, USSR, China, Democratic People's republic of Congo, DPRK (N. Korea)
yep... seems like more than 2 countries on that list that were/are definitely communists.
As many have pointed out, with the human condition being what it is, and probably always will be, communism has never, and will never work. Another way it would work, is if we were all implanted with a micro chip at birth, and received all our education, and directions from the Hive.. but that wouldn't end well now would it?
My apologies i ment to put NO communist countries.
Vietnam-dictatorshipo
USSR-almost but Stalin came along
China-trying but failing (possibly socialist)
DMRC-dictatorship
N Korea-fascist
(i have since updated my comment)
Hungary
Poland
Romania
East Germany
Yugoslavia
Cambodia
Laos
Nicaragua
Cuba
Notice that most of these are dictatorships and therefor not communist to any stretch. They just say they are communst to help them get away with what they are doing, this gives people who are communist for the sake of the people a bad name as people stereotype the "bad" communists with the "good" communists.
Notice that most of these are dictatorships and therefor not communist to any stretch. They just say they are communst to help them get away with what they are doing, this gives people who are communist for the sake of the people a bad name as people stereotype the "bad" communists with the "good" communists.
Notice that most of these are dictatorships and therefor not communist to any stretch. They just say they are communst to help them get away with what they are doing, this gives people who are communist for the sake of the people a bad name as people stereotype the "bad" communists with the "good" communists.
Who are the "good" communists???
The reason i put "good" in inverted commas is because i couldn't think of another word.
good=communists for the people
bad=become a dictator and say it is communism.
As i said i put "good" because i couldn't think of a better way to put it, nothing behind it.
Notice that most of these are dictatorships and therefor not communist to any stretch. They just say they are communst to help them get away with what they are doing, this gives people who are communist for the sake of the people a bad name as people stereotype the "bad" communists with the "good" communists.
Who are the "good" communists???
The reason i put "good" in inverted commas is because i couldn't think of another word.
good=communists for the people
bad=become a dictator and say it is communism.
As i said i put "good" because i couldn't think of a better way to put it, nothing behind it.
I'll restate his question. Show us a "good" communist in real life that had power.
were you lover boy?
