Removal of all Socialism in the US!

[Mamoulian War]

If you're stupid enough to smoke, fine; I hate hate hate smoking, but I wouldn't dare try to remove it from the economy. Car companies lose crap-tons of money in the long term from selling you defective brakes or whatever the hell it was; Toyota has undergone serious brand devaluation, and I'm sure plenty of people are going to hesitate before purchasing Toyotas. And yeah, lead paint blows, but it's from a ****ing Commie country, what do you expect?

lol way to ignore the facts. China isn't communist! Many companies make poor long-term business decisions for short term gain, thus hurting you, the consumer! Tobacco companies purposefully suppressed the truth about its dangers for decades!

Uhh... I've actually never had a Toyota, so no negative effects there... And your beloved Commies tend to blow the brains out of those who reveal the evil of their ways... When companies do that, let me know.

 

 

Looks like you never heard of RIAA...

[Walsingham]

Tiny amendment, which we've been discussing at my end:

 

Control is a value which is taken across a continuum of time in all systems. In this instance you can build control in before you start by preselecting and grooming only certain individuals. An example of a high energy 'communist' groups is SAS squads. But we're talking about suitability of less than 1% of the population. AND very simple clearly defined tasks.

 

So I'm saying you could have a communist society as long as that society was the SAS and all you wanted society to be about was killing things.

[Mamoulian War]

Communes? State administered businesses?

 

Why would the government get involved in private business? That sort of defeats the purpose of being self sufficient, being innovative, and removes the ambition of bettering oneself. Instead of rewarding intelligence, skill, and dedication, you seem to want to punish it, LoF.

 

Ask the chinese government how it is possible to them to make it that way, and still be the richest country to which every western country owes trillions of dollars

[Zachariah Tam]

The Chinese are branching into capitalism and has been for years. It is a totalitarian state which I would never want in, but I wouldn't call it communist any more.

[Mamoulian War]

He was asking about state involved into private business And China is a prime example of state running businesess and having ****loads of profits...

[Meshugger]

Oh my, such illusions some people have about my neighbouring country called Sweden. I've been there more times than i can remember, and you guys are all pretty much wrong. Healthcare is payed by taxes, same with higher education. There are also private schools for those that can afford it. Other than that, it is as socialistic as the USA.

[Guard Dog]

Geez, how is it every thread on this board ends up turining into a pointless debate about the pros and cons of communisim? And for that matter I'd lay large odds the pro-communisim posters are all the same guy.

 

Anyway, since this road has been tread before, many, many, many times I'll make this my last post. Going back three or four pages, before the derailment, I'll cap off what I was saying by adding that a society where the government has control over all aspects of life and business and property is not free. If you are relying on the government for all of the services you depend on, there is a word for that condition: subjegated. It boggles the mind how many of you think that is a desireable way to live. I'd rather die free and poor than live enslaved and well kept.

[Snk]

Do you read "Das Kapital" by Marx?

Not all of it and i didn't treat that as bible but still, yes

proletarian revolution

[213374U]

Ask the chinese government how it is possible to them to make it that way, and still be the richest country to which every western country owes trillions of dollars

What?

 

 

It boggles the mind how many of you think that is a desireable way to live. I'd rather die free and poor than live enslaved and well kept.

Yeah, and I hear some people actually like pineapple on their pizza! MADNESS!

[Walsingham]

Still pinnacle remains in what i wrote in previous post, communism, the theoretical one, does not accept any means of solving a dispute therefore it is based on principle of everyone thinking exactly the same. We can make equaly unrealistic assumptions to prove any equaly unrealistic theories. For example if we lived forever then there would be no preasure to achive anything therefore noone would have to do anything..

weeee, let's start a country where everyone lies in his bed and does nothing all day long, we'll be the happiest people in the world and all evil will vanish...

 

 

I think I like this point but I'm not sure. Would you mind rephrasing it? I'd be obliged.

[Snk]

I think I like this point but I'm not sure. Would you mind rephrasing it? I'd be obliged.

Basicaly Marx belived in everone doing the work to the best of their abilities and everone taking from what was achived only what was neccesary however originally he did not come up with any idea of soving a questions of what's "the best of abilities" and "neccesary" should two people had two different opinions on the subject. He then gone to experiment his grand theory with 40 odd people and it ended up in a complete failure. He altered his theory as to include that what is best and best way to achive it would be decided by temporary government that at the path's end would be no longer need and dissolve itself. However again he made assumption that this "temporary government" would imidiatly and unfailingly at all times know what is best and another assumption he made was that this government would be made up of "true" communists and apparently it would form itself on basis of him pointing out who is true communist and who isn't just yet.

In all of his theory there is no consideration for difference of opinions, even if all worked in best interest.

As a more general example let's assume you have saved some capital, you can either spend it on schools or roads. In any society apart from totalitarism final decision is made by some kind of consensus among the representatives, be it voting or lenghty discussion on pros and cons for both of the choices. In communism there's no place for such discussion because marx never though of any situation other than black and white. Therefore with no facilities to solve internal disputes you are left with only two options:

a) subjugation of everyone that thinks differently than the leader which sooner rather than later means subjugation of everyone

b) dissolution of any formal group into millions of one to five people groups, each working in it's own direction, with no common goal in between them

 

Even without lenghty experiments both of the above can be classified as undesirable, and only way to not meet those troubles was if everyone thought the same way. That is as likely to happen as one that from now on there would be no rainy day, ever.

 

Hope that does make it a bit clearer what i ment. (and i say it in respectful not patronising way)

[Walsingham]

Thanks for explaining. I think I'd agree with you. With regard to your point B you should consider reading 'Divided Kingdom' which looks at a future Britain divided by personality type into four zones. It's not terribly relevant to a discussion on communism, but it's still cool.