Do you think Communism could benefit a country? Personally, I am in favour of it, because I like the idea of an equal distribution of wealth and a proper welfare system for the people.
I also am not in favour of the Capitalist idea of the rich benefitting simply because they have more money, and the labourers working hard yet still being paid badly, or the unemployed who are deprived jobs because the capitalist entrepreneurs find it more profitable to use machines.
but the USA were very corrupted during the fifties and they were far from a communist state. So communism does not lead compulsory to corruption.
Uh, wait a second.
For future reference, arguing that something is false because its converse is false is a fallacy. In this case, saying that communism --> corruption has nothing to do with saying that not communism -/-> corruption!
Cyprus is under communist leadership
Technically yes. But given the context of longstanding (and still unresolved) conflict between Turkish and Greek components in their republican parliament, I'm not sure the "communism" exactly factors in as of yet. It was merely the party that was voted in with a view to trying to sort out the difficulties in getting everybody on board.
Communism is static, capitalism evolves. Marx was a very intelligent person, but you cannot base a whole system on his theories which were written 150 years ago. The society has changed, but the communists have not
Right.Society has changed and will probably be different in the next 100-150 years.More theories will be invented and supported,maybe even better than today's.
arguing that something is false because its converse is false is a fallacy. In this case, saying that communism --> corruption has nothing to do with saying that not communism -/-> corruption!
I think that what I said is a converse error, cause it's like this one: A: All Republicans are pro-life. B: That's not true. My uncle's pro-life and he's not a Republican.
More theories will be invented and supported,maybe even better than today's.
Most significant argument should be centered around the true implications of the US-triggered global economic crisis.
I think that what I said is a converse error
Correct- what you did was a converse fallacy, which is not how it should be done! Let's look at your example to make things clearer.
Statement B has nothing to do with A precisely because your uncle is not a Republican. Statement A however, deals only with Republicans. The only way to demonstrate that A is false is through a counter-example i.e. "my uncle is Republican and he is not pro-life."
Wow, they really said that? I thought they were just trying to build up a huge army and run their countries with an iron fist. I saw them as the types of people who would say absolutely anything to get people to side with them. However, I didn't know that they all said that. Communism sounds ok. I think I could dig that. I mean, if you don't think about it, it makes perfect sense!
Well comrade NoName, that's totally not a waste of time to read because you totally read the second paragraph. It's not like you restated my second paragraph or anything anyway...
Name me a communist regime that doesn't have similar characteristics to Stalin's? Poor economic performance, isolation from (and often hostility towards) the international community, nationwide government-controlled censorship, a totalitarian police-state and propaganda parades enough to come out of your ears to name a few.
There are many ring nations alike. What is the point of it? But to humor you, Cuba, Chile, Greece, Iran, Afghanistan, Nepal, Bulgaria, GDR, etc. But of course you wouldn't recognize those because the US media only shines light on how bad things were in the USSR while the US military operations ousted the democratic presidents of these countries. Also, the Soviet Union actually had a tremendous economic output. Its industrial production was growing 16.4% a year! Stalin's industrialization clearly was a success.
isolation from (and often hostility towards) the international community
That is being blamed on the communist "regimes"? As if the surrounding capitalist nations want to make friends? The 13 nations that helped militarily and financially the White Army in the Russian civil war, along side with the much economic, political, and military sabotage by the West to socialist countries tells a different tale. You do sound similar to the US press when it reported that "REDS SEEK WAR" while its own army was fighting against it earlier.
My father is a machinist. He has been working since he was 18. In his life, he has bought 3 Harley Davidsons, 6 cars, a boat, a nice house (fully payed off), and a work area full of expensive machinery. He also has a pool table, a nice TV, 2 computers, and plenty of money in the bank. If he worked that hard as a communist, he would have a house, a car, a single TV (nothing specail), 1 computer, and would have enough cash to break almost even.
You justify capitalism by saying you're dad has 6 cars, a boat, a nice TV, and 3 Harley Davidsons? You claim communism is bad because dad would only get one car, not six . Most people in countries like America can't say they have six cars, a boat, and 3 motor cycles. In your theoretical communist scenario, everyone can have a car!
In capitalism, a few workers lucky enough to make it out there can have 6 expensive cars and a boat while the less fortunate majority can't even buy one used glob of metal.
My dad should not be forced to give up what he earns to support those less fortunate than him. He has every right to be greedy, which he really isn't.
In a capitalist society, you are lead by the government and your fate is in the hands of big corporations. Because corporations focus on making a profit, they force everyday people to compete with each other. Everyone is busy trying to outdo each other. Those who work hard or play the game right reap the biggest rewards. This causes people to be separated into various different classes.
This may sound horrible for you, but for people like me, we don't care so much for equality in lifestyle. We care for equality in opportunity [to become rich]. Of course, there isn't equality in opportunity. Despite all attempts of giving everyone the same opportunity, the rich always have the advantage over the poor.
I have many problems with the American government. The justice system in America is terrible, and insurance is the biggest scam when it comes to making money, for doing absolutely nothing. Despite the problems, I'm willing to fight to get to the top. Despite what you say, it's not hard to live well in America, only to get ahead. I don't mind taking the gamble to live exceptionally well.
With communism, the government takes complete control of all corporations. The people work directly for the government. The government distributes all wealth equally. The people aren't fighting each other to get ahead, because they can't. You will never live exceptionally well, but nobody will live exceptionally better than you at the same time. If you don't mind living a simple life, communism might be the thing for you. However, people who want to get ahead in life, like me, couldn't live happily in a communist society.
I think communism is a bad idea, but the reason why I fight against communism is because I don't want to live in a communist nation. It would not suit my lifestyle in the same way the corporate world (capitalism) suits yours.
So here's some food for thought. Rather than trying to persuade America or any other big capitalist nation to become communist, how about focusing on the communist areas of the world, or nations who don't care too much for capitalism. This way, people like you can live on one part of the world, and people like me can live here. Then the answer to living a communist life is to move. Of course, trying to persuade any nation to resort to communism would be incredibly hard, but America, the icon of capitalism, would be the hardest to change.
My dad should not be forced to give up what he earns to support those less fortunate than him. He has every right to be greedy, which he really isn't.
Must other people give up their chances to earn something because people in the same position as your dad own most of it and control what happens to it? I mean, Hitler worked pretty hard to get where he got too, does that mean he has the right to send minority groups off to die in camps who didn't work hard enough to stop the Nazis from controlling Germany? Hard work alone can justify everything and nothing.
This may sound horrible for you, but for people like me, we don't care so much for equality in lifestyle. We care for equality in opportunity [to become rich].
Communism provides the equal opportunity for you to enjoy all the output from your fellow man.
With communism, the government takes complete control of all corporations
Under real communism, the government is the proletariat. All hitherto existing "Communist States" have had their economies run basically the same way has corporations. There's wage labor, different social classes, people at the top coordinating industrial facilities, all sorts of things.
people who want to get ahead in life, like me, couldn't live happily in a communist society
Of course you could get ahead in life in communist society; there's nothing stopping you from going to a university and recieving the very best education society has to offer and recieving all the skills which are indispensable to do whatever you'd like. Soviet state capitalism would ensure that everyone not affiliated with the Communist Party or the military would be forced into a simple life of doing the same thing until the end of that simple life.
So here's some food for thought. Rather than trying to persuade America or any other big capitalist nation to become communist, how about focusing on the communist areas of the world, or nations who don't care too much for capitalism. This way, people like you can live on one part of the world, and people like me can live here. Then the answer to living a communist life is to move. Of course, trying to persuade any nation to resort to communism would be incredibly hard, but America, the icon of capitalism, would be the hardest to change.
Ah, but it's quite impossible with imperialism being at its strongest these days. The only way to even achieve a sectioned off Socialist State somewhere in the world would be either through paying a certian group of people a tremendous amount of money, revolution, or socialist takeover of the government via the ballot box.
It would not suit my lifestyle in the same way that the corporate world (capitalism) does not suit yours.
I live a reasonably comfortable life here in the USA.
This may sound horrible for you, but for people like me, we don't care so much for equality in lifestyle. We care for equality in opportunity [to become rich].
1% of the population owns 40% of the wealth. Opportunity to get rich and f'ck everyone else over?
Must other people give up their chances to earn something because people in the same position as your dad own most of it and control what happens to it? I mean, Hitler worked pretty hard to get where he got too, does that mean he has the right to send minority groups off to die in camps who didn't work hard enough to stop the Nazis from controlling Germany? Hard work alone can justify everything and nothing.
You could have also said my dad could buy a gun and kill people! You probably should have done that too. But seriously, earning a position of power and harming others is different than earning money and spending it on yourself.
Communism provides the equal opportunity for you to enjoy all the output from your fellow man.
What is this code for? You get to enjoy a stable environment where nobody has a lot and everyone has just enough? That's not my kind of thing.
Under real communism, the government is the proletariat.
No. Someone has to be in charge of the military. If one person is in charge of the military, then it's a dictatorship. If the government controls the army, they will control the government, not the working class. That's a fact. Whoever owns the army controls the government. The only way around this is to have no army. Good luck with that one.
Of course you could get ahead in life in communist society; there's nothing stopping you from going to a university and recieving the very best education society has to offer and recieving all the skills which are indispensable to do whatever you'd like.
In America, you do that to get ahead in life. It's not actually getting ahead unless you receive something as pay.
Ah, but it's quite impossible with imperialism being at its strongest these days. The only way to even achieve a sectioned off Socialist State somewhere in the world would be either through paying a certian group of people a tremendous amount of money, revolution, or socialist takeover of the government via the ballot box.
Fair enough.
1% of the population owns 40% of the wealth. Opportunity to get rich and f'ck everyone else over?
So why do you praise capitalism for the reason that it provides people with the opportunity to become rich and yet find it horrific that the result of that has been massive poverty?
Well if all your production goes to outside the country then it will be big. Key word: output
Its industrial production was growing 16.4% a year!
This reminds me of one story:
My brother at the start of a new school year, on sports class, he ran slower than he could walk on purpose. By the end of the year he ran significtly faster than on the start, but still slow. He got am outstanding on sports that year.
