'commies'

[Pongui]

Originally posted by Stapel
how communism works:

Everyone has a state provided house and state provided medical care and state provided education.

I know of a Canadian province with 2/3 of that. The state also makes sure everyone has money to spend. What's in a name? Whatever you call this, the fact is this system allows a standard of living enviable by lazy capitalist-by-default governments and, I can reassure the bankers out there it does no harm or even helps drive this province's unstoppable economy.

Originally posted by Stapel
What if I know a way to make and sell a bread for 80 cents? So that every other citizin will be able to buy more other stuff. Will I do so? No, I won't, because I cannot keep the profit. That simple it is.

Corporations, governments, and even small companies find ways to not only reward but to inspire innovation and improved efficiency by the workers. A common way is to simply give a bonus or pay raise when a worker or team develops that "80 cent bread". Organizations successfully employ all sorts of incentives. Innovation may actually be accelerated when fostered by the group, rather than left to isolated dreamers begging for bank loans.

 

[Knight-Dragon]

Originally posted by Greadius
Which just begs the question "Why?"

There are many measures of democracy, and part of that is the tradition and establishment concurrent with it. Banning parties is not the sign of a democratic state.

Why? Haven't you been reading my original post?

The Malayan Communist Party took up arms, and rose in rebellion against the British colonial administration in 1948. And they're banned by the British first. Does that make the Brits undemocratic, in 1948?

Kind of ironic, 'cause the MCP guerilla-style army was trained and armed by British operatives, to hit at Japanese forces behind the lines during WW2. The MCP head, Chin Peng, even took part in the Imperial procession celebrating victory in London, after the war.

Not sure about Singapore's case - not a local. But the Indonesian one is obviously not very democratic...

 

[SunTzu]

Originally posted by tonberry


Still communist. Why do you ask?

No reason really, just wondering

 

[vonork]

Originally posted by Stapel
To give a more decent answer: One wouldn't even think of inventing a cheaper way to bake bread, if one gets no reward.

People need to be stimulated to gets things happen. Money, though not the only stimulation, has proven to be a good one.

Well, that's perhaps cuz the curent system say it shall be so. I do several things every day that don't give me any money but makes me feel better anyway and make other people glad.

Is it not enough to make other people happy, is greed the strongest insinitive that drives hummanity forward?

 

[insurgent]

Originally posted by Cecasander
First of all I don't care about right-liberal-conservatives, so I don't really care if you find me clever or not. The bad things about communism are introduced by people who were imperialistic and greedy. I'm sure Karl Marx didn't ment it that way. It's just the (wrong) way the communistic ideas are interpreted.

It's just not (yet) in the human's nature to introduce communism as they prefer to stick to (oldfasinoed) imperialistic and power-hungry ideas....

Very well, you don't care about me. But you have to care about the 65 million victims of communism. Have you been to the Gulags? Have you ever visited North Korea and seen the way communism has enslaved the entire population? Have you ever been to a shop in East Germany being watched 24 hours a day by Stasi and KGB agents everywhere and all the time? Can you even imagine the feeling of the Cuban dissident being tortured in Castro's prisons? Communism, like any other perverted autocratic system must be fought. Communism suffers from a basic lack of respect for the individual. Communism does not tolerate deviation. Communism does not tolerate any of the basic freedoms of humans. I suggest that you keep that in mind - whether you like me or not, you have to acknowledge the factual cruelty of Communist regimes.

Of course Karl Marx didn't want such a society. But so far, not a single communist country has developed towards the free proletarian worker's society of equality - they have all turned into permanently autocratic tyrannies. Have you got any examples of a working communism? And do you not yourself live in a working example of how democracy and liberalism works? I think you do.
So before you call all other ideologies than communism materialistic, I suggest you look at the facts. Look at history. See how democracy and pluralism and toleration is the way forward.

 

[thestonesfan]

Originally posted by vonork


Well, that's perhaps cuz the curent system say it shall be so. I do several things every day that don't give me any money but makes me feel better anyway and make other people glad.

Is it not enough to make other people happy, is greed the strongest insinitive that drives hummanity forward?

Money is not the only inspiration, but it does enhance inspiration. There is room in a capitalistic society for many incentives, not the least of which is personal satisfaction from enriching humanity's well-being.

But don't forget that money often provides the means to innovate as well as the incentive.

 

[John Wayne USA]

Very well, you don't care about me. But you have to care about the 65 million victims of communism. Have you been to the Gulags? Have you ever visited North Korea and seen the way communism has enslaved the entire population? Have you ever been to a shop in East Germany being watched 24 hours a day by Stasi and KGB agents everywhere and all the time? Can you even imagine the feeling of the Cuban dissident being tortured in Castro's prisons. Communism, like any other perverted autocratic systems much be fought. Communism suffers from a basic lack of respect for the individual. Communism does not tolerate deviation. Communism does not tolerate any of the basic freedoms of humans. I suggest that you keep that in mind - whether you like me or not, you have to acknowledge the factual cruelty of Communist regimes.

Well said.

So before any of you begin to critisize the US or Pinochet or anyone else for that matter defending their countries from Communism, perhaps you should think about this.

About the horrors and about the deaths.

You say that Communism is not interpreted correctly........

Exactly how many people must die before you get it right?

Long live Capitalism!

 

[Jorge]

Originally posted by John Wayne USA




Well said.

So before any of you begin to critisize the US or Pinochet or anyone else for that matter defending their countries from Communism, perhaps you should think about this.

About the horrors and about the deaths.

You say that Communism is not interpreted correctly........

Exactly how many people must die before you get it right?

Long live Capitalism!

Pinochet was a dictator, and Allende a democratic elected president who could be kicked out by the people in the next elections if he did things wrong.

Do you understand the difference between democracy and dictatorship?

Perhaps your last sentence should be long live to democracy?

 

[jack merchant]

Originally posted by John Wayne USA




Well said.

So before any of you begin to critisize the US or Pinochet or anyone else for that matter defending their countries from Communism, perhaps you should think about this.

I totally agree on the 'well said'.

However, Western support of Pinochet and other supposedly anticommunist regimes cannot reasonably be defended. By condoning the torture and murder of thousands, the West lowered itself to the level of those 'Communist' regimes it was fighting against. No-one can convince me that mass murder and disappearances were necessary to prevent communism from taking over.

 

[insurgent]

Let me just quote myself here, so as to prevent any misunderstandings:

Originally posted by insurgent
... Communism, like any other perverted autocratic system must be fought...

May I just add that as well as Pinochet was a dictator, Allende wasn't the saint of democracy either. After winning the elections, his nationalisations and failed collectivisations caused many deaths. There was much opposition to him, and he didn't hesitate much to use force against it. He had ordered the army to crush protests several times. Allende was no saint.

 

[John Wayne USA]

May I just add that as well as Pinochet was a dictator, Allende wasn't the saint of democracy either. After winning the elections, his nationalisations and failed collectivisations caused many deaths. There was much opposition to him, and he didn't hesitate much to use force against it. He had ordered the army to crush protests several times. Allende was no saint.

Thank you.

The Left tries to make out Allende seem lilke the patron saint of Democracy. This guy got a minority of the vote in a very questionable manner. (Less than 40%)

He was actively opposed and never got a majority to support him.

Allende was setting up Chile to be another Cuba.

And before we go off about Pinochet... Remember, AT LEAST Pinochet allowed for a referundum on his rule and voluntarily left power after he was defeated.

The man was true to his word.

Hmmmm....

Now exactly how long has Castro been in power???

Has there EVER been any referendums on Castro's rule??

(This gives me an idea for a new thread!)

 

[Jorge]

The fact that Allende was doing badly in an economic sense can not be compared to the action of a dictator.

Again, Allende was elected democratly by the people. Pinochet not.

If you want, so that you can compare what you are saying, I could argue that Bush actions have killed many people either, and because of that he is no saint and can be compared to Sadam.

Comparing Allende with Pinochet is the same as comparing Bush with Sadam.

 

[jack merchant]

Originally posted by John Wayne USA

The Left tries to make out Allende seem lilke the patron saint of Democracy. This guy got a minority of the vote in a very questionable manner. (Less than 40%) He was actively opposed and never got a majority to support him.

Completely true, Allende would not have been good for Chile. However, he was democratically elected under the prevailing system in Chile - it's not all that different from a certain GWB winning the election in the US with a little less than half the popular vote (I'm not trying to troll here, just pointing out that some democratic systems allow for these kinds of results).

Originally posted by John Wayne USA

The man was true to his word.

He did however leave behind a system in which he was immune from prosecution for his crimes. And I'm not sure we should appreciate honourable mass murderers all that much more than dishonourable ones.

 

[Jorge]

@John Wayne USA

What are you trying to compare? Pinochet vs Allende? Then why you talk about Castro? Are you going to include also Stalin in this comparation later on? Come on, be serious.

Allende was not allowed to leave power becase he was killed. And his party maybe had not the majority, but neither did Bush, right?

 

[Cilpot]

@John Wayne USA

Would you say Pinochet was a leftie in the same manner that Hitler was (Your words) ?

 

[insurgent]

I agree that Pinochet was a dictator and should have been toppled too. But this thread was about communism, so I wrote about communism.
And my point about Allende is irrelevant in this discussion, but is meant as a sidenote. He was indeed leading his country towards dictatorship and autocracy. But, as you say, he was democratically elected - and saying whether or not he would have tolerated a democratic defeat is speculation.

 

[jack merchant]

No worries, insurgent - it wasn't you who introduced Pinochet into the discussion

 

[Jorge]

Originally posted by insurgent
I agree that Pinochet was a dictator and should have been toppled too. But this thread was about communism, so I wrote about communism.
And my point about Allende is irrelevant in this discussion, but is meant as a sidenote. He was indeed leading his country towards dictatorship and autocracy. But, as you say, he was democratically elected - and saying whether or not he would have tolerated a democratic defeat is speculation.

I think that what is speculation is your statement that he was leading his country towards ditatorship.

Following your logic:

Whether or not Bush will tolerate a democratic defeat is speculation.

Or change Bush for any democratic president you want.

You have to presume innocence or provide proves.

 

[Ville]

Communism would work well if human being wouldn't be so greed.
In USSR it was like you own nothing and you own everything which basically meant: Nation owns everything, even you

If it would be like people own and share everything then it would work but there's always some dictators who want all so it will never work.
Perfect Communism is utopia. Maybe in future like 5000 AD, (if there hasn't been Nuclear war) it could work because you could get everything for free by just clicking a button of a machine which creates things out of nowhere, (maybe it was a bit long ranged )

 

[insurgent]

Originally posted by Jorge
I think that what is speculation is your statement that he was leading his country towards ditatorship.

Following your logic:

Whether or not Bush will tolerate a democratic defeat is speculation.

Or change Bush for any democratic president you want.

You have to presume innocence or provide proves.

Please, let me leave this discussion. What I have to say is not provocatory in any way. i don't want to discuss Piochet and Allende.

Bush has tolerated the freedom of speech and the other rights of freedom of humans. The US is a working democracy.

Chile was an instable democracy and when Allende took seat, he started a campaign to shut the mouthes of his political opponents (as Pinochet did). He intruded in the freedom of speech, and torture was widespread in his prisons. Political arrests were made, and the army was ordered to break up protests several times. In fact Pinochet had been ordered to pacify a protest in Santiago when he made his coup.
So, Allende wasn't democratic in his rule. Saying that he wouldn't have allowed democracy later therefore seems fair.

There you go. Can I leave now? As I said, this discussion is irrelevant to the subject of this thread.