Political Crossfire Forums

[Narvik]

Anarko-Kapitalizt wrote: Limey Boosk wrote: There is a big difference between socialism and communism. Americans cannot tell the difference.

Communism has got to be the dumbest thing in history.

Socialism, like we have in the UK, mixed together with capitalism is the best system.

All you ultra-right or ultra-left nuts destroy countries. The people in the middle reap the rewards by using the best parts of both.

So how is the third way the best system?
look at Sweden.

[Anarko-Kapitalizt]

Narvik wrote: Anarko-Kapitalizt wrote: Limey Boosk wrote: There is a big difference between socialism and communism. Americans cannot tell the difference.

Communism has got to be the dumbest thing in history.

Socialism, like we have in the UK, mixed together with capitalism is the best system.

All you ultra-right or ultra-left nuts destroy countries. The people in the middle reap the rewards by using the best parts of both.

So how is the third way the best system?
look at Sweden.

Please elaborate for me.

[Narvik]

Anarko-Kapitalizt wrote: Narvik wrote: Anarko-Kapitalizt wrote: Limey Boosk wrote: There is a big difference between socialism and communism. Americans cannot tell the difference.

Communism has got to be the dumbest thing in history.

Socialism, like we have in the UK, mixed together with capitalism is the best system.

All you ultra-right or ultra-left nuts destroy countries. The people in the middle reap the rewards by using the best parts of both.

So how is the third way the best system?
look at Sweden.

Please elaborate for me.
I think Sweden has a really good mix of socialism and capitalism.

[Anarko-Kapitalizt]

Narvik wrote: Anarko-Kapitalizt wrote: Narvik wrote: Anarko-Kapitalizt wrote: Limey Boosk wrote: There is a big difference between socialism and communism. Americans cannot tell the difference.

Communism has got to be the dumbest thing in history.

Socialism, like we have in the UK, mixed together with capitalism is the best system.

All you ultra-right or ultra-left nuts destroy countries. The people in the middle reap the rewards by using the best parts of both.

So how is the third way the best system?
look at Sweden.

Please elaborate for me.
I think Sweden has a really good mix of socialism and capitalism.

And how exactly is that the "best system" as you call it?

[Limey Boosk]

Quote: So how is the third way the best system?

Look at the world. Right wing states are rubbish, commie states are just as bad.

The countries which prosper and have people living like kings are the ones who live in Limeys third way states.

[superskippy]

Ah of course.

[Narvik]

Anarko-Kapitalizt wrote: Narvik wrote: Anarko-Kapitalizt wrote: Narvik wrote: Anarko-Kapitalizt wrote: Limey Boosk wrote: There is a big difference between socialism and communism. Americans cannot tell the difference.

Communism has got to be the dumbest thing in history.

Socialism, like we have in the UK, mixed together with capitalism is the best system.

All you ultra-right or ultra-left nuts destroy countries. The people in the middle reap the rewards by using the best parts of both.

So how is the third way the best system?
look at Sweden.

Please elaborate for me.
I think Sweden has a really good mix of socialism and capitalism.

And how exactly is that the "best system" as you call it?
I never said it was the best system. I said it was a good system. It's not a completely new system.. it's just a mix of socialism and capitalism...
Got it?

[Anarko-Kapitalizt]

Narvik wrote: Anarko-Kapitalizt wrote: Narvik wrote: Anarko-Kapitalizt wrote: Narvik wrote: Anarko-Kapitalizt wrote: Limey Boosk wrote: There is a big difference between socialism and communism. Americans cannot tell the difference.

Communism has got to be the dumbest thing in history.

Socialism, like we have in the UK, mixed together with capitalism is the best system.

All you ultra-right or ultra-left nuts destroy countries. The people in the middle reap the rewards by using the best parts of both.

So how is the third way the best system?
look at Sweden.

Please elaborate for me.
I think Sweden has a really good mix of socialism and capitalism.

And how exactly is that the "best system" as you call it?
I never said it was the best system. I said it was a good system. It's not a completely new system.. it's just a mix of socialism and capitalism...
Got it?

Yes you did.

Narvik wrote: Socialism, like we have in the UK, mixed together with capitalism is the best system.

[Narvik]

Anarko-Kapitalizt wrote: Narvik wrote: Anarko-Kapitalizt wrote: Narvik wrote: Anarko-Kapitalizt wrote: Narvik wrote: Anarko-Kapitalizt wrote: Limey Boosk wrote: There is a big difference between socialism and communism. Americans cannot tell the difference.

Communism has got to be the dumbest thing in history.

Socialism, like we have in the UK, mixed together with capitalism is the best system.

All you ultra-right or ultra-left nuts destroy countries. The people in the middle reap the rewards by using the best parts of both.

So how is the third way the best system?
look at Sweden.

Please elaborate for me.
I think Sweden has a really good mix of socialism and capitalism.

And how exactly is that the "best system" as you call it?
I never said it was the best system. I said it was a good system. It's not a completely new system.. it's just a mix of socialism and capitalism...
Got it?

Yes you did.

Narvik wrote: Socialism, like we have in the UK, mixed together with capitalism is the best system.
duh! my mistake..
I meant it is a really good system..

[anti-communist]

Limey Boosk wrote: There is a big difference between socialism and communism. Americans cannot tell the difference.

Communism has got to be the dumbest thing in history.

Socialism, like we have in the UK, mixed together with capitalism is the best system.

All you ultra-right or ultra-left nuts destroy countries. The people in the middle reap the rewards by using the best parts of both. Classic address !That’s true . Extremeness destroyed many nations during the past century .moderate political policy can reap peace and prosperity

[wildchild]

Hello ..
Just one exampl of communists brutality is Tibet where people having got killed just for worlds of Freedom, antill late 90s there were public executions on stadiums . 1/4 of holl population of Tibet was eliminated just in 1959-1983 thatis 1.207.487people.
In 1984 the Agensy of information of Tibetan Government in exile published the statistic, and they said they can give everyone name of these ....
Executed : U-Tsang(Central Tibet) -28.267, Kham(Eastern Tibet) 32.266, Amdo(which now Province of Quinghay) 96.225.
Died in prisons or slave-labour-camps: U-Tsang-93.477, Kham-64.877,
Amdo-14.784.
Fell in combats(mostly in 1956-1961 and 1966-1969): U-Tsang -143.255,
Kham-240.410,Amdo-49.042.
Died due to famine( mostly in 1959-1963): U-Tsang-131.253,Kham 89.916, Amdo-121.982.
Tortured to the death: U-Tsang-27.951,Kham-48.840, Amdo-15.940.
Commited suisade because of fear to be captured: U-tsang-3.375,Kham-3.952,Amdo-1.675.
Remember, remember all of these who died and these who still suffer so much under any kinds of tirany we have to stand up!!!

[wildchild]

about statistics of these who have died in USSR ander Lenin and Stalin
in my country we speak about 40 million, and do not forget 27 million victims of WW2

[towelhead]

Communism s*cks because it doesnt coincide with human nature which is competitive. Also communists are extremists, they are convinced that what they are doing is right and everything else (all other opinions) is wrong and has to be eliminated. Therefore what you get is a single party state which refuses to tolerate any sort of opposition which in real life is actually essential for progress. Democracy leads to discussion and discussion leads problem solution (at least in theory).

[wildchild]

towelhead wrote: Communism s*cks because it doesnt coincide with human nature which is competitive. Also communists are extremists, they are convinced that what they are doing is right and everything else (all other opinions) is wrong and has to be eliminated. Therefore what you get is a single party state which refuses to tolerate any sort of opposition which in real life is actually essential for progress. Democracy leads to discussion and discussion leads problem solution (at least in theory).
Agry for 100%.
And I think revolution it is like a desise , almoust everybody could be infected, just like it was happened in Russia in February 1917..

[The Russian]

Communism was a response to capitalist atrocities. Fiefdoms, Slavery (made up of, wow, the Slavs themselves who embraced communism).. ofcourse we should not exclude african slavery, the Red Rubber policy of the congo where people were disposable like car parts, or perhaps the machine age revolution that put people in coal mines to die by the thousands for the profits of the few. How about the abuses of factories and their owners. Or the fact that the church was bought off to peddle obedience to the economically and socially raped. How about the thousands of africans killed in the diamond mines run by europeans or when they landed on the cape, killed off a few million inhabitants to set up a trading post? Perhaps the British policies of social and economic rape of any imperial colony, as a matter of fact that was the policy of EVERY imperialist power, and its not like the policy has changed, its just now we can do it from a distance. There were plenty of good reasons for communism to take root, and it did, as a response to capitalist crimes against humanity. An extreme response, but non-the-less a fruit of unrestricted capitalism.

The current culture of mutual exploitation that exists in ultra-capitalist nations like the US will have to mold with socialist ideology like national healthcare, housing, education and insurance or face eventual revolt. You may point to communist nuts like Stalin but I point to anti-communist nuts like McCarthy... which leaves that argument stale as both sides have their extremists. The socialist states of western europe like Norway and Sweeden have dismally low rates of crime, poverty, STDs, homelessness and the sorts... and yet we, the US are so much richer than they are?... a paradigm. And Cuba has the highest standard of living of ALL south american countries... think that would have happened with the mob bosses and american-supported Batista? ... how many absolutely brutal and murderous regimes did we support just because they were anti-communist during the cold war? ... anyone remember Chiquita banana and how that company bought the support of the US for a dictator who killed thousands upon thousands of people but was anti-communist?

I suspect when china takes the reigns of world economic leadership, predicted by world economists to be around 2020, that there will be a large shift left.

And finally, in the broad sense, theres no hope in saying all those individuals were killed by communism, communism is a government policy that can be used or abused just as much as capitalism... as far as I remember Hitler was a born capitalist who DESPISED the communists something harsh. Those people were killed by just another breed of person abusing power like the kings before them, fiefdom holders, slave plantation owners, and any democratically elected presidents of countries like Iran or Egypt. Our commitment to capitalism over humanity is only evidenced by our support of countries like Saudi Arabia, and Iran during its time when it had that murderous Sheik (come to think of it, Iranian hate for the US spawned as a reaction, and not brainwashing unlike other places.) kinda makes it justified, don't it? and I hate Iran with every fiber of my being. Worldwide slavery is probably the worst expression of capitalism there ever was, using people as product to make profit, but its not like it has stopped, you're just paid enough to exist and support your institution while the top 3% of the country control 92% of its wealth.

[czechmate]

The Russian wrote: Communism was a response to capitalist atrocities. Fiefdoms, Slavery (made up of, wow, the Slavs themselves who embraced communism).. ofcourse we should not exclude african slavery, the Red Rubber policy of the congo where people were disposable like car parts, or perhaps the machine age revolution that put people in coal mines to die by the thousands for the profits of the few. How about the abuses of factories and their owners. Or the fact that the church was bought off to peddle obedience to the economically and socially raped. How about the thousands of africans killed in the diamond mines run by europeans or when they landed on the cape, killed off a few million inhabitants to set up a trading post? Perhaps the British policies of social and economic rape of any imperial colony, as a matter of fact that was the policy of EVERY imperialist power, and its not like the policy has changed, its just now we can do it from a distance. There were plenty of good reasons for communism to take root, and it did, as a response to capitalist crimes against humanity. An extreme response, but non-the-less a fruit of unrestricted capitalism.

The current culture of mutual exploitation that exists in ultra-capitalist nations like the US will have to mold with socialist ideology like national healthcare, housing, education and insurance or face eventual revolt. You may point to communist nuts like Stalin but I point to anti-communist nuts like McCarthy... which leaves that argument stale as both sides have their extremists. The socialist states of western europe like Norway and Sweeden have dismally low rates of crime, poverty, STDs, homelessness and the sorts... and yet we, the US are so much richer than they are?... a paradigm. And Cuba has the highest standard of living of ALL south american countries... think that would have happened with the mob bosses and american-supported Batista? ... how many absolutely brutal and murderous regimes did we support just because they were anti-communist during the cold war? ... anyone remember Chiquita banana and how that company bought the support of the US for a dictator who killed thousands upon thousands of people but was anti-communist?

I suspect when china takes the reigns of world economic leadership, predicted by world economists to be around 2020, that there will be a large shift left.

And finally, in the broad sense, theres no hope in saying all those individuals were killed by communism, communism is a government policy that can be used or abused just as much as capitalism... as far as I remember Hitler was a born capitalist who DESPISED the communists something harsh. Those people were killed by just another breed of person abusing power like the kings before them, fiefdom holders, slave plantation owners, and any democratically elected presidents of countries like Iran or Egypt. Our commitment to capitalism over humanity is only evidenced by our support of countries like Saudi Arabia, and Iran during its time when it had that murderous Sheik (come to think of it, Iranian hate for the US spawned as a reaction, and not brainwashing unlike other places.) kinda makes it justified, don't it? and I hate Iran with every fiber of my being. Worldwide slavery is probably the worst expression of capitalism there ever was, using people as product to make profit, but its not like it has stopped, you're just paid enough to exist and support your institution while the top 3% of the country control 92% of its wealth.

I kinda didnt wanna read the whole thing, but heres my reaction anyway: communism provides ground for atrocities because it imposes state-ownership. And since the communism is a single party system then state-ownership equals party ownership. Now the party (and therefore the state as well) is at the mercy of one man. If that one man happens to be Stalin or Mao or Kim Jong Il then you are fcucked and cannot do anything about it.

[KansasGauKS]

I can't stand this polite crow-talk about what good Communism did to bring down ANY capitalist faction of government. Communist Bolshevism is all about reaping the rewards of hard working masses, who's only mistake was to be too afraid to stand up to these sniveling cowards (Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc.). I am reading Mao's biography these days, and my heart goes out to those many people who had to be thrown in Mao's path, to make way for his bloody rule. All because he saw the usefulness in joining the Comintern in it's early days, where Stalin was just being plain greedy over his ever expanding sphere of influence.
CB was never really about "Workers Unite!". It was about workers uniting under one man, who was more intelligent and conniving than the rest of them. If there was ever to be ONE man recorded in history to have been the most megalomaniacal ever, then it would be the founder of Stalinist Bolshevism himself.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely, and that is exactly what happened to Stalin.

[superskippy]

Bastard.

[shadowed by secret police]

These countries called themselves communists but they were not. Just like the Spanish inquisitors in Spain during the Spanish Inquisition called themselves "Christians" yet they were killing and torturing people who would not conform to their religious beliefs. Was Torquemada and the other inquisitors following the precept of Jesus Christ? What happened in the Soviet Union and China had nothing to do with the teaching of Karl Marx. It's like blaming Jesus Christ for the Spanish inquisition. Like Engels said in his preface to Karl Marx's A Civil War in France, "If you want to know what is a dictatorship of the Proletariat then look at the Paris Commune. That was a dictatorship of the Proletariat." You would do well reading George Orwell's Homage to Catalonia

[The Russian]

The goal of Marx communism is not what Stalin and Mao set up. The good communist leaders were Lennin, Castro, Gorbachov and whiever Chinese Communist Party leader let peasants own their own land. The point of communism is effectively to illiminate a role for itself... the idea is utopian but even if you met with it somewhere in the center it was a better way of life than economic exploitation.

I'm not even sure Pol Pot was a communist. He was a conservative who didnt want liberal ideology taught so I'm not sure he was into socialism... he killed off all the teachers so his country could revert to old days.

Theres plenty of murderous dictatorships that are anti-communis, just look at the ones the US supported in Nicaragua or other parts of south americ... plenty of democraticaly elected tyrants like Iran's or Palestine's leaders. It is the value of the person runing the country.