ilduce349
(Financial, Philo)
1. yes i am athiest (but idont think the question was directed at me)
2. shes not african, we moved 2 africa, shes British
3. the aa at ur school r retards
Successful Communism
- Thread starter GhostWriter16
- Start date
1. yes i am athiest (but idont think the question was directed at me)
2. shes not african, we moved 2 africa, shes British
3. the aa at ur school r retards
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
"Those African Americans are retards". You've got to be specific, or it just sounds like "Theym daym nig'ras is geddin' reeeal uppitah", which really isn't what you're going for.
amadeus
Bishop of Bio-Dome
Awfully polite of him to call them African-Americans and not coons, tarbabies, jungle bunnies, etc.
Must be one of those left-wing commie liberals we always hear about.
Must be one of those left-wing commie liberals we always hear about.
ilduce349
(Financial, Philo)
Awfully polite of him to call them African-Americans and not coons, tarbabies, jungle bunnies, etc.
Must be one of those left-wing commie liberals we always hear about.
I'm not a racist but I am a conservative. The fact he is said that the African-Americans at his school think Africa is a country. so i think they r ********
civver_764
Deity
There are conservatives in Canada.
=(
=(
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
State socialism, technically. Even the Communist Party of Cuba acknowledges that Cuba does not represent a functioning communist society, as is dictated by Marxist theory.And I thought they all were in America. Still, Cuba has a successful communism if you ignore some of the human rights abuses and limits on computers and internet.
And, even then... It's a sort of borderline-deformed version. Salvageable, unlike China, but far from ideal.
Merkinball
Deity
And I thought they all were in America
And the crumbling infrastructure, and the meager standard of living, and the lack of sugar, and the food shortages, and the fact that a person's university options depend on how well the person is integrated to Marxist ideology
And I thought they all were in America
As well as 1970s' cars, little entertainment, and food rationing.
http://www.cartadecuba.org/Life in Red.htm
Oh, doesn't Cuba sound grand! Since there communist, EVERYBODY is poor, instead of SOME people.
No, not everybody is poor. Most are. Some are quite rich.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
See, now, everyone always says that as if it's some apt, cutting criticism, but it's not, it's nonsense. Of course it's better for a million and one people to have two dollars than for a million to have one dollar and one to have a million. That is not, in any way, a difficult or inobvious fact. It's not as if "poor" is an absolute measure, it just means "not very much money". Well, guess what, none of these countries have much money to start with, however you distribute it! If there's an issue, it's whether or not everyone could have had two dollars all along, regardless of that one millionaire, and it is not one which this glib cliché actually addresses!Oh, doesn't Cuba sound grand! Since there communist, EVERYBODY is poor, instead of SOME people.
And I'm sorry that GamezRule had to be on the receiving end of that little rant, but apparently that was the point at which I bubbled over into impotent web-fury.
Yes, those are the people that are more equal then others.
ilduce349
(Financial, Philo)
The options
Have Upper, Middle, Lower, Hobo classes
or Have just a low class. I personally would choose the first
Have Upper, Middle, Lower, Hobo classes
or Have just a low class. I personally would choose the first
Merkinball
Deity
This is idealistic and simplistic. If everyone is working the same nominal amount and contributing the same to the society, then yes, you're absolutely correct. But this is just as fantastic as your original comment. The general way most communist nations come about, including Cuba, is by using strength in numbers from people who are generally incompetent to extort and steal pre-existing wealth created by others. The revolutionaries then two things with the people. A.) They win them over with flowery and ridiculous jargon, or B.) They eliminate them from the system by either imprisoning them or killing them. So then you're left with a bunch of incompetent people running a once thriving country into the ground. Then, years later, you have little ignorant western leftists who defend a system that's been driven into the ground by stating that it's better to have everyone equally poor than to have wealth disparity. Despite the fact that the system is the prevailing reason why the nation is so poor. Poorer than Chile. Poorer than Mexico. Poorer than France.
If there are 1,000,000 people earning a dollar a day and one guy that's a millionaire there's nothing wrong with the system if the millionaire earned it and the 1,000,000 people do nothing but sit on their collective butts out of their own volition. And nobody but the millionaire has the right to hold onto that wealth.
Jabarto
Emperor
Yeah but see, that never happens. Every single rich person today exists because they're subsidized by the labor of the people beneath them. No, that's not hyperbole; every last one of them. The rich would not exist if we didn't live in a system designed to funnel wealth into their pockets, and since that wealth is generated by others (at best) or gained through forthright exploitation (at worst) it is unquestionably fair for that wealth to be redistributed.
Also what Karalysia said.
Indeed. The so called "free market" fails to assign people the true value of their work. As I said in another thread, worthless people like lawyers, CEO's, politicans, stock brokers, and bankers are given vast wealth by the free market while the truly valuble people in a society like professors, teachers, scientists, doctors, engineers, technicians, and other skilled and worthwhile members of socieities are paid very little by comparison. The "free market" is at its core inefficent. It allocates wealth according to that which is most profitable, not that which is most valuable. In a socialist system people who are valuble would be paid more.
Thus the wages in a socialist system of doctors, scientists, phhysicits, engineers, teachers etc... would be significantly higher than the wages of a politican and lawyer. (CEO's and stockbrokers wouldn't exist, no they wouldn't have been shot even though they deserve it, but the need for them would have been abolished since the workers would democratically control the means of production and thus would be able to run their own affairs without such worthless people.)
Thus the wages in a socialist system of doctors, scientists, phhysicits, engineers, teachers etc... would be significantly higher than the wages of a politican and lawyer. (CEO's and stockbrokers wouldn't exist, no they wouldn't have been shot even though they deserve it, but the need for them would have been abolished since the workers would democratically control the means of production and thus would be able to run their own affairs without such worthless people.)
Wait, don't you want to be a lawyer, Karalysia?
hmm lets see
Great sense of community
Local food
not starving to death
decent education
good healthcare
low crime
palatable life style
Similar threads
