Should Communism Be Declared A Criminal Ideology?

[Sean Hayden]

I read many countries have had socialist leaders at various times. Some have succeeded and some haven't.

Even without researching anything though, it's perfectly possible to imagine many things influence the successes or failures of a nation at any period in time besides whether they happen to be socialist or not.

The US has come close to failure many times. This gets back to what I said before about americans being unable or unwilling to see the role pure dumb luck has played in their successes. Diving deeper into the details, I think it would be very difficult, if not impossible to credit something as broad as capitalism for the times when we climbed out of a hole or were elevated in the ranks of world power.

Having a socialist leader doesn't mean the country has a socialist economy. There is no place where socialism as an economic system has been tried where it hasn't resulted in more poverty for the people, oppression, loss of civil liberties, etc.

I agree wholeheartedly, it is perfectly possible to imagine many things that influence the successes or failures of a nation at any period in time besides whether they happen to be socialist or not. However, reality tends to be a tad narrower than the full extent of human imagination.

Moreover, I had to spit out my beverage at the turn of phrase "happen to be socialist." Oh, yes, it's not a socialist country. It's a country that "happens to be socialist." Like, he's not a gay. He's a person, that happens to be gay.

I do agree that Americans, like everyone else in the world, are unable and unwilling - in large part - to see the role luck plays in their nations' successes. Every western country has walked a knife edge, and could well have have lost it all at some time or another, generally multiple times. Modern civilization exists on a very thin foundation. Just a month without electricity in the US would likely end the nation, and spark massive civil war.

Capitalism need not be credited for the success of the US. The reality is that all capitalism is is liberal democracy applied to the economic sphere. It's freedom. Capitalism is the economic system where the means of production of goods and services and property in general is held in private hands, rather than the State. That means that individuals do, generally, what they please with their own property, and they are generally allowed to do what they want on the terms they voluntarily agree to, including buying and selling things or services. That's what capitalism is. Socialism, on the other hand, takes property and the means of production and places it in the hands of the State, so that whatever system exists for determining what States do end up determining what the people/citizens do with their things and services. In socialism, the individual doesn't get to have a dream to become the maker of widgets and create a new system to make better and cheaper widgets and sell them to others to make money. That's for the State to decide what the State thinks is necessary to make. If the State (through whatever political process exists there) thinks widgets don't need to be made, then the new widget idea would not be lawful to go forward. The State determines what the wannabe widget maker does with his economic life.

That's oppression. Socialism is oppression. You cannot have Socialism economically and have people deciding for themselves what to make and sell. Then it's not socialism, because if people decide for themselves, then the means of production is not held by the State. QED.

I thought you said the other guys were doing the no true socialism bit, yet here you're doing it.

China is a big socialist economy. They claim to be working towards total socialism. It's interesting anyway.

[Forty Two]

If you think China offers a better level of economic well being to its people than the western capitalist countries, I'd ask you to substantiate that. The only areas where China has prospered is where they have dipped their toe in the water to liberalize their economic policies. Chinese living standards are about 20% of (not 20% below, 20% OF) the US, and about 30% of the EU average. China provides a nice example of Socialism sucking.

[Sean Hayden]

Not really 42, they are growing. It's a project right?

[Hermit]

I actually blame the media, both right and left leaning, for a lot of our problems.

A recent Harvard study says right media is far, far worse:

The Harvard Study says the Right Wing media is far far worse than the Left Wing media? You mean, media that leans left does so without actually leaning left?

You see, the only way media leans a certain way is by being biased. If it wasn't biased, it would not be leaning left or right.

The study does not claim the "Left Wing" media are unbiased. It established by empirical means that they are less polarised and insular than the Right Wing media.

The model, created with data from the media sources most-cited during and after the election period, shows that left-wing media outlets are more closely aligned with centrist media outlets, though the right-wing media sources are much more skewed and “are operating in their own media world,” Roberts explained.

Linkypoo

[JimC]

If you think China offers a better level of economic well being to its people than the western capitalist countries, I'd ask you to substantiate that. The only areas where China has prospered is where they have dipped their toe in the water to liberalize their economic policies. Chinese living standards are about 20% of (not 20% below, 20% OF) the US, and about 30% of the EU average. China provides a nice example of Socialism sucking.

You haven't factored in their relatively recent emergence from a very backward peasant economy, racked by internal fighting, ravaged by the Japanese and torn apart by a civil war. Their economic rise since the consolidation by the communists has in fact been quite phenomenal...

Having said that, their authoritarian rule is abhorrent, as shown recently by their appalling treatment of Uighars. They have their own unique blend of state control and capitalism, which would have Marx or Lenin spinning in their graves...

[Seabass]

It isn't perfect, yeah there are problems, but it isn't the dire, apocalyptic, end of the world scenario so many people in the media and politics push so hard.

Therein lies the problem. The dire, apocalyptic, end of the world scenario does in fact draw near, but it will come in the form of a boiling planet, not a caravan or tax hike. Fox News, Breitbart, Daily Caller, etc. work tirelessly to create an alternate reality that is quite literally imperilling the future of our species.

Climate change impacts worse than expected, global report warns
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/envi ... emissions/

WE NEED MASSIVE CHANGE TO AVOID CLIMATE HELL
https://www.wired.com/story/we-need-mas ... mate-hell/

http://www.ipcc.ch/
https://www.ipcc.ch/news_and_events/pr_ ... _spm.shtml

[pErvinalia]

In general, countries that conservatives decry as "socialist" are in fact mixed economies,

Oh, yes, quite often. And in general, countires that lefties laud as "socialist" are, in fact, social democracies which are based on a capitalist economic system and owe their economic success to liberalization of said capitalist economies over the past 40 odd years, to wit, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, etc.

Lefties? You are the one who keeps labelling those countries socialist.

The socialism bit of the mixed economy put them in trouble, and economic liberalization led them to the top of the heap economically.

What a ridiculous simplistic view. Going by this logic, they should move towards greater economic liberalisation like the US - a country with spectacular debt and deficit, and one whose rankings on all sorts of social metrics falls WAY behind the Scandinavian social democracies.

often with a booming business sector, but with a degree of government action and oversight that raises right-wing hackles (many nations in Europe, for example...). The existence of free enterprise (which certainly promotes innovation and some aspects of personal freedom) is not under threat from most rational, progressive thinkers.

They are under threat in the US from the Bernie wing of the Democrat Party, and plainly the Ocasio-Corteth wing of the Democrat party.

What's with you and making fun of this woman's last name? Why not just spell it as it should be spelled? Pronouncing the 'z' as 'th' is a common thing in Spanish and some Latin American dialects.

[pErvinalia]

There's plenty of other South American countries which show complete capitalism can be a complete disaster. Bolivia and Chile for instance.

History proves unfettered capitalism is completely unsustainable as corruption and abuse pile on top of each other and inequality grows rampant until a revolution or World War levels the playing field.

Capitalism isn't all that and a strict, dogmatic adherence to its supposed virtue is no less religious than being a Communist.

[pErvinalia]

As in almost everything there's a middle road, but we seem unable to embrace it. It's like politics here. You are either a snowflake SJW or a racist Nazi. Anyone advocating a more centrist, nuanced approach is shouted down by both sides.

The problem in the US is that the centre has moved to the right considerably since the 80s, and you consider sane policies that the social democracies in the rest of the world have as evil socialism.

[pErvinalia]

I don't really care what Harvard comes up with, or honestly any poll or study conducted by pretty much anyone. I have eyes, am reasonably intelligent, reasonably well informed, and capable of reaching my own conclusions. What's "right wing media", anyway? Breitbart? Infowars? I'm talking about CNN, MSNBC, Fox, and other mainstream outlets that the (again) vast majority of people use. Just read the headlines with a non-biased and critical eye. Some tilt left, some tilt right, and ALL point fingers at each other. ALL report on the extremes. That's because if they reported on what people actually thought or believed it would be boring as shit.

I honestly don't know where y'all live, because I haven't seen any of the sort of shit that gets reported on a daily basis. I've seen no Nazis, I've seen no Commies, I've never seen a Klansman or a radical SJW. I see people going about their daily lives, going to work, paying their bills, going to church (or not), eating at restaurants, washing their cars. I see black people talking to white people talking to Hispanic people talking to Asian people. I see women in head scarves shopping in Publix. I see kids from all backgrounds and races playing together. I see my neighbors, who are white, black, Hispanic, and Asian, all living together in this little neighborhood. It isn't perfect, yeah there are problems, but it isn't the dire, apocalyptic, end of the world scenario so many people in the media and politics push so hard.

You forgot Florida Man..

[pErvinalia]

If you think China offers a better level of economic well being to its people than the western capitalist countries, I'd ask you to substantiate that. The only areas where China has prospered is where they have dipped their toe in the water to liberalize their economic policies. Chinese living standards are about 20% of (not 20% below, 20% OF) the US, and about 30% of the EU average. China provides a nice example of Socialism sucking.

China's GDP growth rates have dwarfed the US's for decades. I suppose you'll say that's the capitalism part. To be honest, your whole position reeks of a begging the question fallacy. You start from the assumption that all the good stuff is capitalism and all the bad stuff is socialism, and then you apply that to all the good and bad you see around the world, as if that is some form of argument.

[laklak]

No one forgets....Florida Man! If you forget his name, he has a map on his head.

[pErvinalia]

[Cunt]

There's plenty of other South American countries which show complete capitalism can be a complete disaster. Bolivia and Chile for instance.

History proves unfettered capitalism is completely unsustainable as corruption and abuse pile on top of each other and inequality grows rampant until a revolution or World War levels the playing field.

Capitalism isn't all that and a strict, dogmatic adherence to its supposed virtue is no less religious than being a Communist.

Maybe what they should go after is capitalism with, say, protections in place to keep the best of it, while preventing the worst. Maybe, give all the 'plebes' the right to defend themselves by words. Maybe with other things...

[Rum]

That's what much of the developed world does - or tries to. The model in most European countries and in Oz, Japan and some parts of Asia regulates the market so that capitalism can't ride roughshod over everything in its path. Of course, there is some regulation in the USA too, but nothing like the extent it is in Europe.