Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 p_gray99 wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 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.

I disagree. I'm usually starving by 10.00AM. Oh the evils of capitalism!

 Frazzled wrote:
I disagree. I'm usually starving by 10.00AM. Oh the evils of capitalism!

Wait... stir frying my brain with queso didn't satiate your hunger?

I haz sad fee fee Mr. Frazzled!

 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".

 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.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 p_gray99 wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 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?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 sourclams wrote:

 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".

Someone sounds grumpy! You know one of the main causes of grumpiness in being hungry, right? Well, why not turn communist?

 p_gray99 wrote:

 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.

 p_gray99 wrote:
Lots and lots of nonsense!

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...

 sourclams wrote:

 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?

 p_gray99 wrote:

 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.

Here, I'll help: http://foreignassistance.gov/CountryIntro.aspx

 sourclams wrote:

Gonna have to call a big ol' BS on this one. People simply do not 'starve' to death in developed Western nations.

http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/care/child-starved-to-death-after-benefits-delay/6524052.article
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-20935424
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7879201.stm

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.

Oh yes, it's definitely all the corrupt governments, and not at all capitalism. Most certainly!
I agree that corrupt governments are a problem, and that capitalism is by no means the only reason for the starvation of millions. But equally, you can't say that there aren't millions starving, as you tried to.

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.

Here, I'll help: http://foreignassistance.gov/CountryIntro.aspx

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.

 p_gray99 wrote:

whembly wrote:Bull gak!

US is numero uno in giving out aid... do some research first before making such a blanket statement.

Here, I'll help: http://foreignassistance.gov/CountryIntro.aspx

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.

 p_gray99 wrote:

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.

 whembly wrote:
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.

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.

You have an excellent habit of ignoring history.

 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.

 whembly wrote:

 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.

Dude...

This logic could just as easily be applied to the American political system...

 Vulcan wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 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.

Dude...

This logic could just as easily be applied to the American political system...

Oh... abso-lute-ly frick'n right!

We truly are a disfunctional bunch.

 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.

 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?

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.

PhantomViper wrote:

 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?

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

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)

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

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.