It really seems that communism would would work,especially for making a country grow...look a russian all their 5 year plans,they had a industral revolution in only about 5 years.They had doubled in size in about 13 years...the only thing they messed up on was the oppression and a little bit to much govt. controll. sure everything is govt. regulated. I mean communism would be great to grow to a superpower remeber how small and insignifigent russia was then they became communist and came to the ranks of america....Now imagine if america went communist for 20 years and went back.Even if Canada did that it would bring it up to americas level...correct me if im wrong

quote:

---

Originally posted by Agent Boris_KGB:
It really seems that communism would would work,especially for making a country grow...look a russian all their 5 year plans,they had a industral revolution in only about 5 years.They had doubled in size in about 13 years...the only thing they messed up on was the oppression and a little bit to much govt. controll. sure everything is govt. regulated. I mean communism would be great to grow to a superpower remeber how small and insignifigent russia was then they became communist and came to the ranks of america....Now imagine if america went communist for 20 years and went back.Even if Canada did that it would bring it up to americas level...correct me if im wrong

---

They came into power not because of Communism, but because of power hungry leadership. Also don't forget how many peasants were killed for opposing the plans Stalin made

quote:

---

Even if Canada did that it would bring it up to americas level...correct me if im wrong

---

Canada already has a higher standard of living than America. I would not be interested in the reduction of that standard of living + reduction in freedom just to become a world superpower.

Uhm, if canada ever even thought of becoming a communist country I think it would lose so many important trading partners, including the u.s, that it would become poor, very very quickly. It just wouldn't happen in this day and age.

I stand corrected.

Boris

See, the reason communism never worked is cause of the leaders. I mean look at China, Mao was doin great! He was a charasmatic leader.. but then he starved all his people. If he wouldnt have been so anal about the amount of food that people had to give to government, they wouldnt have starved. Cuba made the mistake of bein on russias side, they did good, until Russia went to shit and then Cuba was right behind em.

Communism is one of those things that looks great in theory but never in practice, look at some communist states:
North Korea: Governed by a headcase, rightly included in Bushes "axis of evil". The country funnels all its cash into the military while its people starve.
China: Terrible human rights record, public executions of thousands per year, some for crimes such as fraud. The people still live under repression not known of here in the west.
Cambodia: The Khymer Rouge tried to create a nation of farmers and peasants by systematically wiping out its residents who were educated, including bizarrely anyone who wore glasses as they looked intellectual.
Former Soviet Union: They were the first to lauch a man into space but the people still had to queue for bread, that tells you all you need to know about the governments priorities.
Cuba: The best of a bad bunch, but even now they've softened their hardline approach, opening the doors for tourism and exporting/importing more goods with western nations.
My point? Find a modern day communist nation you'd willingly move to. And how would your communist utopia avoid the mistakes of its predecessors.

All the bad things you say happen in communist countries happen in capitalist countries as well, sometimes on a greater scale.

Facist/Dictatorships/Tyrannies perhaps. How many western nations are/were governed by mass murderers? Hitlers Germany is the only recent one that springs to mind. Extreme right wing South American nations can be chosen but hardly described as capitalist. Capitalism may have faults and be responsible for suffering but nations with a democratic government rarely execute or imprison indefitely people who speak out against their masters. Capitalist nations are at fault when they support these types. RE Britains support of Pinochets military junta in Chile and so on.

Karl Marx had an idea. "From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs".

Think about it; you would only have to do whatever you were able to do for the whole. If you were a doctor, you would treat sick people. In exchange you would have all your needs met; housing, food, clothing, etc.

Now the problems start. Who gets to choose what your abilities will be? Why should I work twice as hard as my neighbor (I'm a coal shoveler, he's a crossing guard) for the same benefits? Where is the personal gain that is necessary if any culture is to progress? If communism were around at the beginning of society we would all still be living in caves and wearing skins.

Communism only supplied the bare minimum, and it did a very shitty job of that, but it expected the absolute maximum from everyone, and that was its downfall. Certain people aren't going to like working all day just for a loaf of bread and a couple of potatos, its only human nature to want what you've earned.

its impossible to debate whether or not communism works or not as it has never been tried. there has been lenninism, stalinism, and socialism. none of these are even close to communism. first; they have a government. in true communism there is no govt. second; in all cases so far the working class hasnt accually had any control. lennin was midle class, same with castro and mao. its almost the equivilent of hitler being a jew. as for whether leninnism(ussr cuba) works or not, it does work quite well for some things. russia was catapulted to superpower status in less than 30 years. thats pretty fucking impressive. Of course there is definitly a serious downside. even excepting for stalin, there isamassive toll in human life, butthe same could be said for capitalism.(indians, the poor, blacks) another important point to make is that true communism is suppose to happen in developed countries, not backwards countries like russia was. if the US were togo communist it would be comletely different that any other country so far(prolly better)notthe least because of the high value we put on freedom(or did before 911).
personally i think a decentrlized communism federation would be the most effective and freest system for equitible distribution of wealth.

quote:

---

Originally posted by 4ot:
russia was catapulted to superpower status in less than 30 years. thats pretty fucking impressive.

---

The only thing that made them a superpower was their military. Technology copied from the US, fresh bodies from the countries given over as spoils, after WWII. Communism had nothing to do with it, and it's just not that impressive anyway.

quote:

---

Originally posted by user X:
Technology copied from the US

---

ROFL

But the whole point of Communism is to redistribute wealth evenly.

Someone tell me why thats good.

quote:

---

Originally posted by user X:
The only thing that made them a superpower was their military. Technology copied from the US

---

What kind of Technology? Cause MOST of the Technology that the US got you can thank Germany. Rockets? Cars? Yea, you can thank them, but Im not sure which technologies your talkin about.

I'm talking about the military technology that the Soviets acquired, via espionage, during the cold war.

It's irrelevant that we took it from the Germans. The point was, to retort the supposed accomplishment of communism.

Their industry had a reputation of being ill-funded and half-assed. Take Chernobyl, for example; a poorly constructed and poorly ran facility, when it went up in radioactive flames, many men died putting it out.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheMouse:
Canada already has a higher standard of living than America.

---

I know how you like to make statements. Care to prove this one?

Nox

quote:

---

I know how you like to make statements. Care to prove this one?

---

Depends on what you consider high standard of living, but my personal observations rank what I have seen in Canada to be far higher than southern California. Very small amount of violent crime, less poverty, much cleaner, better affordable housing, and more availability of health care.

Compared with... almost no affordable housing, extremely high rent, violent crime, HMO hell, lots of homeless old people on the street due to inadequate mental health facilities and many paying high rent to live in ghetto housing or cockroach hotels... and many working jobs but still living with either parents or with over three working roomates due to inability to afford the rent with the income they get.

I'm sure there are many places in the US that are decent if you don't have a 6 figure income, but I haven't seen them yet unless you count some secluded little town up in the hills.

Oh, and the UN Development Program ranks Canada above the US too.. *shrug*

[This message has been edited by TheMouse (edited 08-23-2002).]

Until you live in a Mexican ghetto in Canada, your comparison between that and southern Cali are apples and oranges.

quote:

---

Until you live in a Mexican ghetto in Canada...

---

There are mexican ghettos in Canada?

I was talking about California. If the conditions you saw in Cali dont match what you are presently in in Canada, its because youre not in the middle of a Mexican ghetto. California is like a third world appendage of America, it doesnt count.

Have you ever been to California?

quote:

---

Originally posted by user X:
The only thing that made them a superpower was their military. Technology copied from the US, fresh bodies from the countries given over as spoils, after WWII. Communism had nothing to do with it, and it's just not that impressive anyway.

---

ever heard of sputnik? you know how the US has to wait for a launch window for the shuttle. the russian never do, there rockets are tough fuckers.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spirit of '22:
But the whole point of Communism is to redistribute wealth evenly.

Someone tell me why thats good.

---

it isnt neccesarily good. its whats best for the most people. utilitarianism. i think it makes a lot more sense to distribute the wealth evenly than to let 5% of the population not labor and have 95% of the wealth.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheMouse:
Have you ever been to California?

---

Been there, seen it all. I lived in L.A., Oceanside and San Diego. It is as the man said, a bad third world copy of what used to be a pretty state. There are sections of L.A. that the police won't even go into after nightfall, sections where NO ONE speaks or knows any english, sections where white people aren't welcome, sections that look like Mexico took a shit and forgot to wipe, and so much more it is a pain just to think about it.

The last time I was there (early 2002) I was all for starting the earthquake that would make the place slide off into the ocean.

A lot of it is very bad, but the state is pretty diverse. There are places like Orange county, Simi Valley, etc that are complete yuppieville. Northern California is pretty quaint though... I like that area.

yes, all of us up here in NorCal hope the next terrorist attack is a nuke in LA. get rid of the shit hole once and for all.
PS you know we did steal cali from mexico?

So everyone having the same amount of baubles and trinkets is serving the greatest good?

You think everyone needs to have the same square footage in their house and the same miles per gallon in their vehicles to be happy?

quote:

---

originally posted by mouse: Canada already has a higher standard of living than America.

---

quote:

---

originally posted by nox: I know how you like to make statements. Care to prove this one?

---

Mouse is right. Go look in any up-to date world atlas. They all display standard of living. Score for the canucks! Maybe its the better beer, hmmm.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spirit of '22:
So everyone having the same amount of baubles and trinkets is serving the greatest good?

You think everyone needs to have the same square footage in their house and the same miles per gallon in their vehicles to be happy?

---

accually i was thinking that it would be good for everyone to be able to eat and have a roof over thier head, but i suppose now you'll just call me a bleeding heart liberal.
and no i dont think they need the same square footage and gas milage(tho most leninist states dont really allow cars) to be happy, but whats your point? how does that make it not a good thing? does Bill Gates being worth 60billion dollars(or whatever it is now) make him happy? communism isnt about money and stuff, in fact its about the exact opposite, its about human beings being trreated as such and not getting screwed because they chose the wrong stock to invest in, or they got a job at enron.

>>>>accually i was thinking that it would be good for everyone to be able to eat and have a roof over thier head<<<<

That isnt equal distribution of wealth. Some people can have bread and cabbage stew and live in a shack while others eat ostrich eggs from golden plates in palatial estates. Redistribution of wealth means levelling those differences. So why is that good?

>>>>and no i dont think they need the same square footage and gas milage(tho most leninist states dont really allow cars) to be happy, but whats your point?<<<<

...equal distribution of wealth.

>>>>does Bill Gates being worth 60billion dollars(or whatever it is now) make him happy?<<<

Are you kidding? Of course.

>>>>communism isnt about money and stuff, in fact its about the exact opposite, its about human beings being trreated as such and not getting screwed because they chose the wrong stock to invest in, or they got a job at enron.<<<

No, youre real wrong. Karl Marx tells the working class they should abandon their nation, their culture, their family structure, their traditions, and their god in favor of an equal share of the world's resources. How is that not about money?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spirit of '22:
>>>>accually i was thinking that it would be good for everyone to be able to eat and have a roof over thier head<<<<

That isnt equal distribution of wealth. Some people can have bread and cabbage stew and live in a shack while others eat ostrich eggs from golden plates in palatial estates. Redistribution of wealth means levelling those differences. So why is that good?

>>>>and no i dont think they need the same square footage and gas milage(tho most leninist states dont really allow cars) to be happy, but whats your point?<<<<

...equal distribution of wealth.

>>>>does Bill Gates being worth 60billion dollars(or whatever it is now) make him happy?<<<

Are you kidding? Of course.

>>>>communism isnt about money and stuff, in fact its about the exact opposite, its about human beings being trreated as such and not getting screwed because they chose the wrong stock to invest in, or they got a job at enron.<<<

No, youre real wrong. Karl Marx tells the working class they should abandon their nation, their culture, their family structure, their traditions, and their god in favor of an equal share of the world's resources. How is that not about money?

---

well thats cause communism doesnt use money. go back and read the shit. and yes it wants people to abandon thier death culture. and capitalism wants them to abandon thier god, family and traditions just as much as communism. they just let tham pay lip service to it. its like the catholic church, they took over easter from the pagan religions and made it christian.

on paper communism is ideal,

in practice communism is a failure, mainly because it isn't communism.

but the utopia that is communism was made obsolete by our advances in technology.

in 1880 communism would work as written, in 1980 though?

would a corporate executive stand for having the same as the high school dropout in the mail room?

why would he want the pressure with no reward?

quote:

---

Originally posted by IzzyReele:
on paper communism is ideal,

in practice communism is a failure, mainly because it isn't communism.

but the utopia that is communism was made obsolete by our advances in technology.

in 1880 communism would work as written, in 1980 though?

would a corporate executive stand for having the same as the high school dropout in the mail room?

why would he want the pressure with no reward?

---

Does an Air Traffic COntroller deserve the same wage as a School Janitor? Anyone who believes in this deserves to have their plane take a nosedive straight into the ocean.

they just let tham pay lip service to it.

Which is better then what Karl Marx said to do in the Manifesto.


Maybe its the better beer, hmmm.

Of the many many beers I've consumed from around the world, I consider Mexico's Corona a step above any Canadian beer. Now, before you get proud, I consider Mexican beer the equivlent of Jackel Urine. No, Canadian beer is piss. if you want good beer, try anything but.

A lot of it is very bad, but the state is pretty diverse. There are places like Orange county, Simi Valley, etc that are complete yuppieville. Northern California is pretty quaint though... I like that area

My in-laws live in Half Moon Bay. I visited there, and among North CA,I hoe that the earthquake spares these two areas, and the rest goes just the same way Plato said Atlantis did.

quote:

---

Originally posted by LordJugz:
See, the reason communism never worked is cause of the leaders. I mean look at China, Mao was doin great! He was a charasmatic leader.. but then he starved all his people. If he wouldnt have been so anal about the amount of food that people had to give to government, they wouldnt have starved. Cuba made the mistake of bein on russias side, they did good, until Russia went to shit and then Cuba was right behind em.

---

Mao was an idiot! He ordered everyone to kill every sparrow in sight, and he took everyone's valuables to make steel or something, after which he discovered that he did not have the tools or the education to do it! LOL!

And BTW, I myself am a COMMUNIST!!!!!

Originally posted by Pikey_jay:
Communism is one of those things that looks great in theory but never in practice, look at some communist states:
North Korea: Governed by a headcase, rightly included in Bushes "axis of evil".

Communism never established in North Korea. Moreover, there is a hierarchy, which is contrary to communism.

China: Terrible human rights record, public executions of thousands per year, some for crimes such as fraud. The people still live under repression not known of here in the west.

True Communism never established in China. Moreover, the Chinese practice Capitalism.


My point? Find a modern day communist nation you'd willingly move to.

Your point is not valid. No country has ever established Communism or socialism--including the USSR!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pikey_jay:
Facist/Dictatorships/Tyrannies perhaps. How many western nations are/were governed by mass murderers? Hitlers Germany is the only recent one that springs to mind. Extreme right wing South American nations can be chosen but hardly described as capitalist. Capitalism may have faults and be responsible for suffering but nations with a democratic government rarely execute or imprison indefitely people who speak out against their masters. Capitalist nations are at fault when they support these types. RE Britains support of Pinochets military junta in Chile and so on.

---

Over 100 million people have died from starvation alone under capitalist governments. Compare that to the Nazis.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Global Dominator:
Karl Marx had an idea. "From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs".

Think about it: you would only have to do whatever you were able to do for the whole. If you were a doctor, you would treat sick people. In exchange you would have all your needs met; housing, food, clothing, etc.

Now the problems start. Who gets to choose what your abilities will be? Why should I work twice as hard as my neighbor (I'm a coal shoveler, he's a crossing guard) for the same benefits? Where is the personal gain that is necessary if any culture is to progress? If communism were around at the beginning of society we would all still be living in caves and wearing skins.

Communism only supplied the bare minimum, and it did a very shitty job of that, but it expected the absolute maximum from everyone, and that was its downfall. Certain people aren't going to like working all day just for a loaf of bread and a couple of potatos, its only human nature to want what you've earned.

Haven't you read the Communist book "The Right to be Lazy"?

quote:

---

Originally posted by user X:
The only thing that made them a superpower was their military. Technology copied from the US, fresh bodies from the countries given over as spoils, after WWII. Communism had nothing to do with it, and it's just not that impressive anyway.

---

Stalin's industrialisation of the soviet union in 10 years is not impressive to you?

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheMouse:
Depends on what you consider high standard of living, but my personal observations rank what I have seen in Canada to be far higher than southern California.

---

Now your opinion has become fact.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheMouse:
Oh, and the UN Development Program ranks Canada above the US too.. *shrug*

---

I need a source for this statement. Until then, I too *shrug*. I suspect that this is taken from context or a flagrant error. The last time I checked, the Canadian dollar was worth 64 cents US. But then I guess economics doesn't count.

Show me the source.

Nox

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brent:
Stalin's industrialisation of the soviet union in 10 years is not impressive to you?

---

When taken in the consequences of the "human toll", absolutely not. Look at the history books in terms of the suffering of the average Soviet "Joe six-pack" and see the price they paid for Stalin's industrialization. Then see how "impressed" you are.

Nox

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nox:
When taken in the consequences of the "human toll", absolutely not. Look at the history books in terms of the suffering of the average Soviet "Joe six-pack" and see the price they paid for Stalin's industrialization. Then see how "impressed" you are.

Nox

---

I know all of this. All I have to say is, "The end justifies the means."

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nox:
The last time I checked, the Canadian dollar was worth 64 cents US. But then I guess economics doesn't count.


Nox

---

Hahaha.
What has the statement "the Canadian dollar was worth 64 cents US" got to do with the strength of an economy? Last time I checked the US dollar was worth about 65p British Pound. Does that make the british economy stronger then the US? Also what has a currency exchange rate got to do with the standard of living? I would like you to explain this to me Nox as you appear to be an expert in economics.

here is some stuff on the standard of living.
http://www.studyincanada.com/english/geninfo/world.asp
http://www.td.com/economics/standard/standard.html


Living Standard

Canada ranks sixth in the world in standard of living (measured according to gross domestic product per capita), behind only the United States, Switzerland, Luxembourg, Germany and Japan. Canada's rank among nations tends to rise even higher in assessments that consider gross domestic product per capita along with other factors (e.g., life expectancy, education) that contribute to the overall quality of life.


we are right behind the U.S.

[This message has been edited by Agent Boris_KGB (edited 08-25-2002).]

I hate when Communists defend themselves by saying, "Communist countries werent REALLY communist." Thats a weak cop-out. If your idea of a government hasnt even come close to existing in countries that claim to support it- please, shut the fuck up and find something else to validate your pitiful existence.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spirit of '22:
I hate when Communists defend themselves by saying, "Communist countries werent REALLY communist." Thats a weak cop-out. If your idea of a government hasnt even come close to existing in countries that claim to support it- please, shut the fuck up and find something else to validate your pitiful existence.

---

But they were not Communist countries. Do you even know what Communism is? Then you would agree.

I dont think the argument is that the idea of Communism leads to brutal death for millions of people. The argument is that people who trumpet Communism always seem to brutalize and kill millions of people (and do all kinds of bad things too )
Communists on this board, and elsewhere, constantly rag on religion, and the same argument applies. Jesus didnt say to burn heretics maan. Fuck you.

Again, the way Communism manipulates people cannot lead to anything other than slavery to a very bad and corrupt, lying bureacracy.


And it doesnt look good on paper either. Most of the things people say about Communism and how its good are closer to Fascism than Communism. Everyone thinks Communism is just living like we do now minus the starving faces we see on TV and the guilt that dad buys our nikes without any effort on our parts.

Originally posted by Spirit of '22:
I dont think the argument is that the idea of Communism leads to brutal death for millions of people. The argument is that people who trumpet Communism always seem to brutalize and kill millions of people (and do all kinds of bad things too )

But it was necessary in the Soviet Union! And not all Communists support this. (I do, however.)

Communists on this board, and elsewhere, constantly rag on religion, and the same argument applies. Jesus didnt say to burn heretics maan. Fuck you.


That's the stupidest thing I have ever heard.

Again, the way Communism manipulates people cannot lead to anything other than slavery to a very bad and corrupt, lying bureacracy.

Do you care to provide any evidence for this?

And it doesnt look good on paper either. Most of the things people say about Communism and how its good are closer to Fascism than Communism. Everyone thinks Communism is just living like we do now minus the starving faces we see on TV and the guilt that dad buys our nikes without any effort on our parts. [/QUOTE]

What!?

quote:

---

Canada ranks sixth in the world in standard of living (measured according to gross domestic product per capita), behind only the United States, Switzerland, Luxembourg, Germany and Japan. Canada's rank among nations tends to rise even higher in assessments that consider gross domestic product per capita along with other factors (e.g., life expectancy, education) that contribute to the overall quality of life.

---

Directed to Nox: Canada is only behind the US when standard of living is based only on GDP. I don't believe that GDP measures quality of life for most citizens. A country could have a good GDP with most people living in the shitter with a huge gap between rich and poor, as shown by many "Latin American Free Market 'Miracles'". I don't believe that different dollar worth measures quality of life. I believe that life expectancy, housing, air/water quality, health care, crime rates, etc measure standard of living. Canada has a higher life expentancy, lower violent crime rates, more availability of health care, more affordable housing, etc.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheMouse:
when standard of living is based only on GDP.

---

You're right. The hopelessly stupid, the ones Nixon called, "the doomed", are going to have a lower standard of living, Wherever they choose to live. Portable misery, if you will. Hence the standard of living, which is more of an indicator of the overall economic climate in a particular region - more of an indicator of what is possible, in a particular place.

btw, your accusations of cold-heartedness were really out of line.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brent:
I know all of this. All I have to say is, "The end justifies the means."

---

And look what a great model of Economy Russia has become, now and at the time of the collapse.

"But it was necessary in the Soviet Union! And not all Communists support this. (I do, however.)"

Of course you do dumbshit. You weren't living and working in a Siberian Gulag, or thrown into the Lubyanka for suspected disloyalty. Which was when an informer overheard you complain about how long the bread line was that day.

"Communists on this board, and elsewhere, constantly rag on religion, and the same argument applies. Jesus didnt say to burn heretics maan. Fuck you.

That's the stupidest thing I have ever heard."

Of course it is, you are impervious to logic, therefore any intelligent point is either stupid to you, or you try and hit someone on their grammer.

"Again, the way Communism manipulates people cannot lead to anything other than slavery to a very bad and corrupt, lying bureacracy.

Do you care to provide any evidence for this? "

He is probably talking about a book that Karl marx wrote. It's called "The Communist Manifesto" read it.

"Stalin's industrialisation of the soviet union in 10 years is not impressive to you?"

And does the fact that capitalist countries were already industrialized long before Stalin was born not mean anything to you?

quote:

---

btw, your accusations of cold-heartedness were really out of line.

---

Huh?

Originally posted by Joe Boo:
And look what a great model of Economy Russia has become, now and at the time of the collapse.

My reply:

quote:

---

Communism failed because of idiots like Trotsky, revisionists like Kruschiev, Gorbachov, and Brezhniev, floods, 20 000 000 Soviet deaths in WWII, the almost complete destruction of Moscow, Czarists, capitalist imperialists, three revolutions, the cold war, etc. Communism had nothing to do with it.

---

Of course you do dumbshit. You weren't living and working in a Siberian Gulag, or thrown into the Lubyanka for suspected disloyalty. Which was when an informer overheard you complain about how long the bread line was that day.

1)there is more starvation under capitalist governments
2)there was more starvation and poverty before communism in the Soviet Union
3)there is now more of it after Communism
3)I support the execution of anyone who causes a threat to society: i.e., the disloyal.

Of course it is, you are impervious to logic, therefore any intelligent point is either stupid to you, or you try and hit someone on their grammer.

1)I am not impervious to logic. My arguments conform with logic; moreso than those of SO22
2)Only baseless and moronic points are stupid to me.
3) it is spelt "grammar".

-Provide some evidence, next time, before you make such assertions

He is probably talking about a book that Karl marx wrote. It's called "The Communist Manifesto" read it.

I have read it. You do know what evidence is... don't you?

And does the fact that capitalist countries were already industrialized long before Stalin was born not mean anything to you?

Communists value both humanity and industry. Capitalists value only industry--worrying about humanity would hinder their "making a buck."

[This message has been edited by Brent (edited 08-25-2002).]

communism has never existed on a large scale.
communism is not the boogey man the leaders of our capitalist nation would have you believe.
the reason russia was ass backwards before the lennnist revolution was because they were still a monarchy, the last european monarchy in fact(not just in name)
people that call themselves communist rarely are. true communism is a lot closer to anarchism than any other political philosophy.

Whichever way you look at it the tag "communism" is applied to any form of extreme left-wing politics. Be it Marxism, Maoist, McCarthyism, Stalin, Lenin, Trotsky and so on. Each of these branches has slightly different philosophies but the roots remain in "communism" People are being imprisoned in Burma for handing out anti government propaganda, do you believe this is right? During the Soviet regime it was illegal to be unemployed!
"Communism" goes against human nature, it enslaves people making them cogs in a giant machine known as the state. It destroys personal growth and individuality. The leaders are nothing but megalomaniacs who seek control and power, dissolving democracy or elections so they can stay in power unopposed until the day they die.
Brent, you are an idealist, probably a student with a Che Guevara poster on the wall. Perhaps in the mythical land of "Trebaxia" or whatever you call it the people are happy to be your slaves, not in real life however.
I'm a capitalist, and I'm proud of it. I'm not going to be shamed into believing because I work hard and get paid well for it I should give it up for those who didn't do that well at school or weren't prepaped to make the sacrifices necessary to better themselves. So what if some people didn't get the lucky breaks, they should grow a spine and stop being dependent on the government to bail them out each time. I grew up in a working class household and it took me eight years of solid graft to get where I am today. It'll take me at least another ten to acheive my goals and I will get knocked back a lot on that road but I've got a goal. Get your head out of your arse and face reality. I will say one thing for Mao though, his quote:
"The journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step"

Originally posted by Pikey_jay:
Whichever way you look at it the tag "communism" is applied to any form of extreme left-wing politics. Be it Marxism, Maoist, McCarthyism, Stalin, Lenin, Trotsky and so on. Each of these branches has slightly different philosophies but the roots remain in "communism" People are being imprisoned in Burma for handing out anti government propaganda, do you believe this is right? During the Soviet regime it was illegal to be unemployed!
"Communism" goes against human nature, it enslaves people making them cogs in a giant machine known as the state. It destroys personal growth and individuality. The leaders are nothing but megalomaniacs who seek control and power, dissolving democracy or elections so they can stay in power unopposed until the day they die.

You obviously do not understand Communism--not my fault. Marxism is very difficult for most people to understand.
You say this without evidence. And do consider Communist, not pseudo-Communist, countries--which do not exist--when providing evidence for anti-Communism, next time.

Brent, you are an idealist, probably a student with a Che Guevara poster on the wall. Perhaps in the mythical land of "Trebaxia" or whatever you call it the people are happy to be your slaves, not in real life however.

Again it is quite obvious that you do not understand Communism.

I'm a capitalist, and I'm proud of it. I'm not going to be shamed into believing because I work hard and get paid well for it I should give it up for those who didn't do that well at school or weren't prepaped to make the sacrifices necessary to better themselves. So what if some people didn't get the lucky breaks, they should grow a spine and stop being dependent on the government to bail them out each time. I grew up in a working class household and it took me eight years of solid graft to get where I am today. It'll take me at least another ten to acheive my goals and I will get knocked back a lot on that road but I've got a goal. Get your head out of your arse and face reality. I will say one thing for Mao though, his quote:
"The journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step"

Wake up. Communism is not slavery. Again, read "The Right to be Lazy"; Communism is quite the opposite.

Typical cop out response, read this book. If you're such an expert on communism why don't you give us the basics, just a couple of bullet points, no lengthy quotes with snide remarks, so you can "educate" the rest of us. CNN and other news networks seem happy to brand a few of these mentioned countries as communist, so do our schools and universities. Are they wrong? Lets see some names and facts to support your statements. I would also like to see how you can describe China as a capitalist nation.
Back up your bullshit or fuck off.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheMouse:
Directed to Nox: Canada is only behind the US when standard of living is based only on GDP. I don't believe that GDP measures quality of life for most citizens.

---

You may not believe it, but I do.

We now are at the opinion level which is the original point I was making. We are talking OPINIONS not FACTS. As long as we differentiate between the two, discussion is possible.

Nox

double

[This message has been edited by TheMouse (edited 08-25-2002).]

Well then, how do you explain countries with a high gap between rich and poor, with a very large amount of the population living in the shitter to have a good "standard of living"? How about political repression? How nice is the "quality of life" in a country with a high GDP, yet it mostly goes into the hands of a few despots and oligarchs, and the country has a huge toxic cloud around them from factory pollution and almost no civil liberties. Hey! Their GDP went up! But, did the quality of life?

GDP doesn't take any of this into account. It's an extremely flawed way to measure quality of life.


How can GDP measure quality of life on it's own if it doesn't measure...

• Life expectancy
  
• Violent crime rate (how good is your quality of life if there's a lot of economic growth but your chances of getting hit in a robbery or drive-by pretty high?)
  
• Health of the population (what's the quality of life where there is good health care, but only a minority of the population have accesss to it?)
  
• Quality of air/water (I don't think toxic clouds and waste dumps all make a good "standard of living even if they raise GDP.. do you?)
  
• Worker's rights (how good is the standard of living if most of the GDP is raised by near slave labor, child labor, or prison labor?)
  
• Protection of civil liberties (a brutal dictatorship that kills off all opposition might grow in GDP, but is the quality of life good? How good is quality of living if you get arrested for voicing an opinion? Would a country with a high GDP, but strict caste system where most people are forced into a permenant underclass have a good "quality of life"?)
  
• Affordable housing (booming housing market for the wealthy top percent might raise GDP, but what does that say about the quality of life for the majority of the population who have a hard time buying a house, or live in disgusting roach apartments with high rent?)
  
• Gap between rich and poor (if the majority of the population is stuck in sweatshops, but a few guys at the top are rolling in dough, is that a good quality of life for everyone?)
  

If you can explain how ONLY GDP measures quality of life, then we can continue with this conversation.


[This message has been edited by TheMouse (edited 08-25-2002).]

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheMouse:
Well then, how do you explain countries with a high gap between rich and poor, with a very large amount of the population living in the shitter to have a good "standard of living"? How about political repression? How nice is the "quality of life" in a country with a high GDP, yet it mostly goes into the hands of a few despots and oligarchs, and the country has a huge toxic cloud around them from factory pollution and almost no civil liberties.

---

In the past, you have demonstrated the propensity of "sticking to the topic" when sticking to the topic suited your needs. I will remind you that we are on this tangent because you created a fact (your opinion) by saying that Canada had a higher standard of living than the USA. I challenged that "fact" and you proved my point. Now you are off and running in a different direction (probably because you are never wrong about anything) and expect me to follow. I will not.

The gap between rich and poor, political repression, and no civil liberties are only three of civilizations' facts of life. Pollution is a modern phenomenon resulting from industrialization.

As I have said before, I am happy to discuss issues with you. Please diffentiate between fact and opinion.

Nox

quote:

---

As I have said before, I am happy to discuss issues with you. Please diffentiate between fact and opinion.

---

You aren't able to differentiate between fact and opinion either. In case you haven't figured it out, "standard of living" is a very subjective term. GDP = standard of living is an opinion, not a fact. Studies which ONLY rank GDP place Canada slightly behind the US. Studies which rank other factors besides GDP, such as life expectancy and health, place Canada above the US. It definately is my opinion that quality of life cannot only be measured by GDP, and I haven't heard anything by you to make me think otherwise.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheMouse:
and I haven't heard anything by you to make me think otherwise.

---

Totally true. I am not trying to change your mind. We disagree...yet again.

Nox

quote:

---

Originally posted by great_sage=heaven:
Mouse is right. Go look in any up-to date world atlas. They all display standard of living. Score for the canucks! Maybe its the better beer, hmmm.

---

Well I have to agree American beer does suck, but it doesn't compare with Germany beer