punkbass2000
Des An artiste
Fox Mccloud said:
What's his e-mail?
Why does Communism keep failing?
- Thread starter Fox Mccloud
- Start date
What's his e-mail?
Damnyankee
Honest Abe
nonconformist said:
Really? What were the circumstances of this case?
Dann
Green bug
Of course. Just to be safe though, I'll set up a new e-mail add for this purpose, and do it in from a public computer in another city in the next province.Fox Mccloud said:
Ethics
Yeehaw!
Yom said:
I consider a Soviet Land grab following the conclusion of World War II under the justification of "defense" and then rigged elections a cause for the split (or more correctly a forced split by Stalin) of Europe post 1945 (and to some extent, an accepted split during the major negotiations before the end of the war). Now, some eastern bloc states may have been willing to cooperate with the Soviets following the conclusion and liberation from the fascists; but its pretty damn conclusive that the brutal quelling of revolts in Austria-Hungary and the continual attempts for countries such as Poland to remove themselves (and the break up of the Soviet Union following the end of the 80s) were clear signs that the Soviets created a split under ideological lines to combat "western capitalism" through an area of influence.
More correctly, France didn't want to give up its imperial holdings following their decline after World War II. Fortunately for them, they had the resources to hold onto Vietnam from their inclusion in the Marshall Plan dole. When the French lost in 54', it was agreed that a communist government would be created above the 17th parallel during the Geneva Convention. I believe in 56' there was supposedly going to be an election for reunification that was cancelled by the South Vietnamese president. Communist insurgency followed.
Clearly, the South didn't want to be with the Communists, but to say that the Communists had no responsibility in the war for their continual agression into the South is laughable. Now if you want to give any legitimacy to either side, perhaps the consideration that the South didn't fight for their freedom, and increasingly relied on the US to bleed themselves there gives the communists a leg up in the finger pointing argument.
I won't say much about China, as I have not done much if any research on the subject... but until I start to see them clean up their politics, governmental control, and human rights violations I have no problem lumping them in with your average communism toting state.
You're right, I've always considered communism to screw the peasant farmer myself, but thats just me.
Although, I would disagree with your notion that being against the west wasn't part of the doctrine. Its extremely clear in Soviet doctrine that the capitalists (by default the west) and the church were against the doctrine (such lovely propaganda they had with the evil priests and czarist capitalists gloating in a circle over the people) . Being athiest was pretty much a requirement for being in the Communist party (theres an anecdote on Khrushchev where to appease the party and his relatives he toted his wife's coffin over the cemetary fence instead of going through the church), which was pretty much where rights and power in the government came from. More correctly, communism was about "redistribution" of rights and an eventual snowball in the removal of rights as Stalinism damaged any hopes of the state reforming properly. Certainly, when the government comes in and tells you you're going to divy up the rooms in your house for communal apartments and increasingly takes control of your property away from you thats loss of rights. Now, the bueracracy, when correctly manipulated gave even newly released political prisoners rights, but the slipperly slope that was the Soviet Union created situations where it was incredibly easy for the state to deny you your rights. A whisper here against you, or a force march into the state farm... laws against your allowance of worship or marriage. The list can go on and on.
What is a planned economy though? For all intensive purposes its a system with bueracratic oversight with individuals who often times have no expertise in the field their changing. Even Khrushchev, a self-proclaimed backgrounded peasant, failed miserably with his reforms in the Virgin Lands programs. A planned economy is inherantly destructive to an individual's life. Sometimes its better to leave someone to their own initiative then to have them rely on an oversight committee that can't have the vested interest the individual on the ground can.
nonconformist
Miserable
Damnyankee said:
Back in 2000, he sent George death threats.
Damnyankee
Honest Abe
nonconformist said:
Thank you for giving all the info, you should be arrested for giving death threats. Sneaky thing you did, trying to get bye without saying that before, lol
Ethics
Yeehaw!
Yom said:
Well perhaps Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania should be back with their former Russian overmaster as aside from a brief 20 years of self-government and lack of American recognition of Soviet control over them, they have no true claims to be removed from Russia.
I'm not arguing that SV or NV were perfect in any sense, but obviously one side didn't want to be with the other, and the only reason they are today, is because the SV couldn't get their act together militarily or politically. I don't see the Communist government as any more valid then the South Vietnamese one.
There's a difference between the Baltic states and South Vietnam. In the past, Vietnam had never been separated in such a way (whose people had no significant differences). The Baltic states were individual nations (not countries, though) within Russia that have independent histories prior to being a part of Russia. Although they switched hands many times over the centuries after they lost their independence, they were never truly a part of the conquering country.Ethics said:
nonconformist
Miserable
Damnyankee said:
An 11 year old isn't gonna bring down the american government.
