Thank you, this would have been a better example to make my point
there is a diffrence between accepting and understanding , i accept that there are evil people in the world but that doesnt meen i would stand behind them, i dont see why people could not accept it and move on, if they dont live in the communist state then why would they feel the need to not accept it?
Every country has secret Police, Britian has MI5 and Mi6, the United states has the FBI and CIA. However i strongly disagree the fact that you think every country should be like the United states because its politics is corrupt and ungust and more like an elected dictatorship than a democracy…
Ok look at it this way… i accept that many communist countrys have negative aspects but so do capitalist societies, i respect you opinion but you must also respect mine. Well i must say that cival rights are inpinged on and im not totaly sure why but communism does work and we can see it in society all around us, just not at a National level.
Oww and thankyou for talking to me in a sensible manor unlike the others…
Seems rather hypocritical of you to say this. Considering the opposite stance you took on another thread where you seem married to empiricism.
Which is probably all false anyway. Because little of what you said has much truth in it.
LOL, I’m just saying I don’t really care about literacy or life expectancy, just freedom.
Yes it did wreck peoples lives but the reason that country was so recked was for two reasons, firstly stalion was a nut case and secondly it got dragged into a war that it couldnt win but in a sense was forced to take part in, at one point during the cold war 72% of the budget was going towards the military, now are you telling me the soviets would not have put that to better use if it was not for the cold war?
Yes, in communism, everyone is equally poor.
Appeal to authority.
And that’s why all these nations suck.
Me too. I don’t think there should be any countries at all.
Unlike Communist regimes? The problem is the state, not the ideology that the state expounds.
USSR = Stalin
DPRK = Kim Il Sung
PRC = Mao Zedong
Cuba = Castro
Camboia = Pol Pot
How are communist countries any different?
Yeah. The state.
Or else..?
Because if they weren’t the bozo’s would’ve been tossed out on their butts a long time ago.
No. Cooperation can work, but it must be voluntary. Coercive collectivization and central planning never work.
I think you are confusing voluntary cooperation with statist communism here.
I used to be a leftist too, until I really began to understand why I thought this way, and that the methods the left proposes to achieve my goals did not work in practice.
Everyone is healthy because they all walk to work because no one has cars.
No, it’s because central planning does not work. No one can deny this.
The USA took part in the Cold War too. Of course it was bad for our economy as well, but the entire country wasn’t impoverished and starving. For every Communist country there is some nonsense justification for their poverty, that if only it didn’t exist, they would be rich. Did it every occur that maybe it’s simply that Communist policies don’t work no matter what? Freer countries go through the same types of events, but the people don’t starve. Stop making excuses.
The Soviet economy was basically run on bribes and shortages. Central planning is impossible.
There are no real capitalist societies. There are mostly fascist societies. Some less than others. Some allowing more economic freedom than others.
The problem with communism is, despite what you think, there is a hierarchal nature. The structure flows upwards to the communist state. Rewards are given to the evil, those who are willing to do the dirty work on behalf of the state. Those who are willing to coerce against it’s citizen’s are placed at the top. Communism in it’s very nature implies a coercive state. The members of the state who are best at coercing their neighbors are the ones who receive promotion.
The same applies to a democratic state as well. This is why politician’s are typically liars. The ones who lie the best and balance themselves in the middle are the ones who are most succesfull. The incentives are built at the expense of your neighbor.
The only thing equal in communism is the equal oppression wrought down from the the central authority, the state onto citizen’s and especially non-party members. An entire framework built under the guise of coercion.
No offence but i really cant be bothered to reply to every single one of your bits but i have gathered that its not communism u disagree with its simply the idea of a state and countrtys in general. However i believe that you theory of anarchy is more far fetched than communism, we are always going to have countrys and states and i can imagine you will agree but if you accept this then you can think of the most practical way of these countrys being governed…
Ow i see, so you did swing to the left? could you explain in a bit more detail why you no longer do please?
Ow and i generally agree with you that there is no good example of communism at a National level but i believe it is the only true way forward from capitalism…
Exactly right, the communist Soviet Union was much poorer in general. This is why competing with the USA required 72% of its budget, assuming that number is correct.
yes it did require this amount of economy because they could not compete, well at least russia can stand on the moral high ground in the sense that America was the country that took it to far when russia said enough is enough…
random tangent in the forum but has anyone been keeping track of the falkland islands at this moment in time and “falklands war 2” as some have decided to call it
Thats not entirely true, they exaggerated it quite heavily, like the Cuban life expectancy figures.
communism has never happend in a rich country. only depserate ones. wat is to be shared up amoung the people when there was little to begin with? when russia was doing well econmically in the 60s people began to enjoy life mroe. their just needs to be alot of econmic stability for the effects to really be felt.
Your fun in a way, but if you think about the free market being the total opposite of what you’re saying then I hope you can understand the drawbacks. I think for one, you seem to not understand what the free market is. Nothing against you. Not many people do. And as you might say to us, ‘Not everybody understands communism’. I think it might be best to define these first. You’re somebody to exercise our ideas with cause you will find many here are very learned, so yes, you’re going to get lots of posts.
Are you making a distinction between (1) communism and (2) state or government?
Anarchy is already here. Communism is never achievable because communism has to use the free market to work.
It is impossible to logically say this. It is contingent, meaning, based on exogenous facts as to whether countries and states persist.
I don’t agree.
Define capitalism.
And rich countries did not start rich. The Asian civilization was much more well established while the States still had nomads. If anything USSR should have resulted as a more prosperous nation than the US. As I said, rich countries did not magically start rich, and than capitalism came later. They became rich because they had a capitalism first. That is, a lengthy duration of the accumulation of capital.
Well, I don’t really have a problem with collectivism per se, I don’t think you can organize a whole economy with collectivist principles. My main problem is the existence of the state.
Well, the viability of anarchism is unproven. The ineffectiveness of central planning is proven.
I do not agree with that.
I do not accept this. I do not accept a monopoly of power in a geographic area, unless I voluntarily submit to it.
I used to think that exploitation of people and the environment by private institutions was kept in check by the state. After some research, I began to realize that the state is what facilitates that exploitation. If the state was dissolved, systematic exploitation would dissolve with it.
When you write, “Capitalism” what do you mean?
thankyou wilderness, i understand we all have our own beliefs and i understand mine is not exactly the most popular. and i understand your next point about definition, ok well when you say free market i think of liberlas and open trade with no tariffs, however im guessing that is incorrect? and yes communism is diffrent in many ways but i guess in a way im refering to marxism more than communism…
and yes i did realise verry soon after creating an account people would be testing their beliefs and theorys on me lol.
i realise anachy is here but i ment in a political way, in the sense of colapsing politics to replace it with anarchy and i do not agree with that…
i can see definitions are becoming a problem… ok lets say capitalism is in simple form, most western democracys and the idea that the individual is key to their own succes.