Who here thinks that the worls was a lot simpler when communist Russia was around? The U.S. did not have to worry about terroists, only the U.S.S.R. If there were Islamic terroists, ehy worried about the Russians. Now they don't so they are running rampant.

Not true.

The Soviets supported terrorism all over the world. Go look at groups called the Red Brigade, Viet Minh, Patet Lao, et al and see where their funding came from.

Nox

VIVE LE COMMUNIST !!!

And the US backed other terrorists eg the Afghan muhadjeen and Cuban exiles.

The world is a lot better now that Russia and the US have stopped supplying radical groups to try to undermine each other and now share common enemies.

I know that both the U.S. and Russia supported terroists but there was not much activity in the middle easy when the U.S.S.R. was there

Actually, there was quite a bit. Israel had multiple wars. The US wasn't as much of a direct target until the oil embargo in 1974.

Nox

Do you really think that Isreal should count. they had it comming. They waltzed in and took land from the Arabs

its a little bit more complicated than that though...

quote:

---

Originally posted by 0:
VIVE LE COMMUNIST !!!

---

Hey, thanks!

Now I will be able to disregard all of your future posts and write them off as crap!

BTW, the USSR was not communist, it was socialist.

[This message has been edited by buttthrax (edited 11-13-2002).]

by name only. russia itself (the only one that really mattered) was undenyably communist.

people seem to have alot against communism. theres nothing wrong with communism.

Except the reality of how it is practiced in the world. That and the theory behind it is flawed. Communism does not improve the lives of its constituents as greatly as Capitalism does. Communism is not nerely as inovative in regards to technology or even as productive. It works in Star Trek, but that is about it.

In the USSR, who owned the capital?

It was the government, not the people. Therefore, it was socialist.

Communism is total fucking bullshit. I happen to like owning my own property. I like working for myself, not you.

in communism the state owns the capital too. who did you think owned it?

"Communism does not improve the lives of its constituents as greatly as Capitalism does."
look around. 4 billion people (out of 6) are in poverty. the most capatilistic country in the world (the US) is also the western country in the worst shape. everyone in cuba gets fed. can't say that about alot of capatilist countries.

Communism is a lie.

Communism is where the "people" own the capital. Look it the fuck up. The USSR was socialist.

One could argue that since in Communism the leaders were the representatives of the peoples interests that the people really did own the capital... it was just the representatives who made the decisions of how to use it. On a serious note, how is your definition of communism different from Capitalism where the people truly own the capital?

RAOVQ
The number of poor people in the world is dependent upon how you classify someone as poor. Many people in third world countries would love to be the poor in America. Most poor Americans still have a place to live, food to eat, and a color TV.

Everyone in Cuba gets fed? Looking on the example provided by Russia, China, and North Korea, I have to doubt that claim.

It is also incorrect to say that America is in the worst shape of all the capitalistic countries. Once again, it depends upon what you measure. It is wrong to think that greatness is dependent upon an equal distribution of wealth rather than prosperity of society as a whole.

"Communism is where the "people""
yes, and the state is made up of the people. so therefore, the people own the capital.

russia was just a failed enterprise, it wasn't centrilised enough to be under any proper control, and stalin was a bloodthirsty warmongerer. china is just fucked up. to call it communist is just demonstrating your ignorace. they are a police state, it isn't communism. north korea is authoritarian socialist; one-man dictatorship. not communist.

here are some things about cuba. the life expectancy is 78years (US=79), they have a 95% literacy rate, very low death rate, lower than the US. for a poor country, they are doing extremely well for themselves, and when you factor in US embargoes and lack of international support, it is very hard to fault communism in this example.

"It is wrong to think that greatness is dependent upon an equal distribution of wealth rather than prosperity of society as a whole"
toss on.
if the GDP is 5000billion, but 1% of the population gets 99% of it, do you think that is a good measure. in a country like that, there is major social issues. where there is equal distribution, there is less crime, and better conditions. there is more to a good country than a big gdp.

Your example of GDP is faulty, and i know it is just an example, becuase no where in the world would you find those high numbers with that income distribution. What I am saying is that while income is not evenly spread in Capitalism, Capitalism still produces more wealth as a whole. It is also worthy to note that GDP is represented by y=C+I+G+(X-M). In this equation C represents consumer spending and in most cases is the largest variable in the equation. What this means in your example is essentially that the 1% are essentially buying from themselves and their corporations are getting the profits. It should also be questioned then why they are buying the products instead of just having them given to themselves. What I am getting at is that with those numbers you are inferring that the poor are being exploited, but what I am saying is that if that were the case, GDP would be much lower as why would the 1% buy from themselves? GDP is not a measure of social progress, but it does measure production in the economy and given your example, production would not nearly be so high.

Equal income does not lead to less crime and better conditions. This is a fairy tale and one only has to look towards Russia and other nations that claim communist roots to see this disproven.

your economics is faulty, ill write more tommorow, but i have to got stude (coincidently for an economics exam).

The poorest people in Western capitalist nations tend to be as wealthy as the average person in Communist nations. Of course, some Communist nations had well run public services. And very well run secret police...

Mao's China was very, very Communist, and it's fucked up status wasn't entirely due to Mao's individual beliefs.

i couldn't be fucked explaining, but in australia 80% of the wealth is in the top 20% of people. i am positive that it is alot worse in america.

In Soviet Russia, car drives YOU!

I love it when people use facts gleaned from a capitalist media to attack Communism. First lesson you learn in a basic history lesson: always question your source.

If you insist on using US capitalist sources, so will I. The Economist (the most fervently capitalist magazine in existence) stated that, despite western governments saying that HUNGER has decreased throughout the world (yes, HUNGER, it blows your definitions of poverty out the water when we talk about people who will die becase they can't eat) as a plus point of capitalism, the only country in the world where Hunger has decreased in the last 15 years is China. I repeat, China.

So while Japan is steadily becoming fucked, the US tries to start a war to revive its economy, and Europe tries to stick together and watches its currency becomes as useful as infra-red goggles on a blind-man (and probably just as uncomfortable), a country where Communism is now being exercised semi-properly (its still not very nice, but hey) is the yardstick by which we judge capitalist success. Yum.

Come, view my hypocrisy thread in this very forum. Come, it beckons.

China is now capitalist (authoritarian, but still capitalist), and trading with the Western capitalist world. Hence the decrease in hunger.

Incidentally, starvation in rigidly Communist North Korea is an ever-increasing problem. Still, they've got nice nuclear weapons. Maybe they can eat them.

Communism is corupted by the people who run it. Ideally communism is the best political theory. Every person works to the best of their abillity and gets equal pay. Everyone owns everything. Wouldn't you like to live in a place where everything is provided to you? Communism is essentially trying to do that, but humans are fallable an currupt the system. Communism would be perfect in an utopian world.


The best system that works in the REAL world is a benevolent authoritarin dictator. If a dictator works to have the needs of his people and fixes them, then he is doing well. Yet, power can be bad in the hands of one person and that is the only short comming of a dictatorship or totalitarianism.

Note how well singapore is run. Their leader is a dictator and that country is very well deucated and wealthy.

...with draconian restrictions on personal freedom, and a massive gap between rich and poor.

Authoritarian dictatorship is just like Communism, or any other political system; it only works well in a utopian world.

A form of representative democracy has consistently proven to be the best of a bad bunch of political systems for the modern world

lets just see one thing.
With capitalism the rich get even richer while the poor die
But in a well working communist system no one will get extreamly rich. but no one willbe piss poor.
lets add another thing while im at it.
capitalistic countrys say that everyone is equal, and yet, some ppl do not have acces to basic health services cuz they dont have te financal means.
But in a communist country u can get as much as anyone else. providing that the " as much " is controled and put to the disposition of te ppl.
I had my childhood living under communism, and i sure was happy to know that i could do as much as anyone else.
What sucked are the Leaders that came to power.