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.

 dæl wrote:

 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.

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.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

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.

 dæl wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

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?

Also: Despite the existence of the embargo, the United States is the fifth largest exporter to Cuba (6.6% of Cuba's imports are from the US.

So, lemme ask you... what embargo?

Cuba is a shithole for a reason... and it's NOT because of US's policies...

 whembly wrote:

Also: Despite the existence of the embargo, the United States is the fifth largest exporter to Cuba (6.6% of Cuba's imports are from the US.

So, lemme ask you... what embargo?

That is the present state of affairs, it wasn't always that way.

Also bear in mind that an embargo need not end all trade.

 whembly wrote:

Cuba is a shithole for a reason... and it's NOT because of US's policies...

Well, not only because of them.

 whembly wrote:

 dæl wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

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?

Also: Despite the existence of the embargo, the United States is the fifth largest exporter to Cuba (6.6% of Cuba's imports are from the US.

So, lemme ask you... what embargo?

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.

Yeah, isn't Cuba supposed to have good healthcare and education or something?

 dæl wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 dæl wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

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?

Also: Despite the existence of the embargo, the United States is the fifth largest exporter to Cuba (6.6% of Cuba's imports are from the US.

So, lemme ask you... what embargo?

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?

Only for those in powah.. yeah, it's good.

But the regular civie? Not so much.

 whembly wrote:

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.

 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.

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.

 dæl wrote:

 whembly wrote:

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...".

Check out Wiki, it's a good start: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Amnesty_International

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:
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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Seaward wrote:

 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.

 whembly wrote:

It's something I remember'ed seeing on CNN years ago... hence, why I said "I remember...".

Check out Wiki, it's a good start: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Amnesty_International

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.

 p_gray99 wrote:

 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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 dæl wrote:

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?

Think about it man...

 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.

 whembly wrote:

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.

 dæl wrote:

 whembly wrote:

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.

Also... go here... please: http://www.therealcuba.com/Page10.htm

 Seaward wrote:

 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.

Also... go here... please: http://www.therealcuba.com/Page10.htm

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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Seaward wrote:

 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?

 whembly wrote:

 dæl wrote:

 whembly wrote:

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.

Also... go here... please: http://www.therealcuba.com/Page10.htm

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.

Please give this a look when you have time.

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.

 Albatross wrote:

 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.

I'm not the one claiming the US needs to do more Hondo. Keep up kemosabe.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 strybjorn Grimskull wrote:

 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)

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!

 Frazzled wrote:

 Albatross wrote:

 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.

I'm not the one claiming the US needs to do more Hondo. Keep up kemosabe.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 strybjorn Grimskull wrote:

 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)

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.

 strybjorn Grimskull wrote:


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???

 whembly wrote:

 strybjorn Grimskull wrote:


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.

 strybjorn Grimskull wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 strybjorn Grimskull wrote:


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.