Should Communism Be Declared A Criminal Ideology?

[pErvinalia]

That should be gdp growth.

[JimC]

pErvinalia wrote:

Well the Chinese state owns something like 80% of commercial activity, and its GDP craps on the US. That's not a "nice example of socialism sucking". Unless you are going to claim that China isn't socialist anymore.

I view it as a weird, authoritarian hybrid of state socialism and greedy capitalism, so it certainly isn't purely socialist anymore. However, your point is still valid in a way; 42 would say that any form of state control, whatever else is going on economically is socialist...

[pErvinalia]

42 is trying to claim that the more capitalist a state becomes, the better it necessarily is. You and I and most people would accept that up to a point, and that point being something like the social democracies of say Scandinavia, Canada and New Zealand. But he doesn't seem willing to make that nuanced an argument. It seems he really does think the ultra capitalist states like the US and formerly some of the South American ones (before they crashed) are better. But by what metric? By debt and deficit, the US is usually far worse. By happiness and other social metrics, the US lags. And by GDP growth, most are comparable to the US, and as I mentioned, the still highly socialist China is much faster growing.

[Scot Dutchy]

Just look at happy first world nations. They are not capitalist. Mind you 42 would not want to live in a happy country.

[Cunt]

I don't follow the logic of your first sentence. How would a population that shoots many of its own members so regularly have trouble providing common services for themselves? I don't see the connection.

If the population is not armed, you can spend their money on anything, and they can't oppose you.

If the population is well-armed, (with guns, or political power) then it is a lot tougher to spend their money on things they might not want (such as health care for invaders)

See, if I am armed (such as your government is) and I tell you to give me the shirt off your back, you are giving me a shirt, or I will take it.

If you are also armed, I will have to ask you for that shirt. Convince you that you should give it to me.

Similarly, it is tougher to force an armed population to comply. They will need to be convinced if the government wants to provide health care for invaders.

[Rum]

Well that’s absurd rubbish. The Second amendment was not put in place so that people could fight their government if they didn't like a particular tax - and even if it was, let's face it, you ain't gonna win.

Nor are you in any conflict between a professional army and a so called 'militia'.

[Forty Two]

Just look at happy first world nations. They are not capitalist. Mind you 42 would not want to live in a happy country.

They are capitalist. Western Europe is capitalist, especially the happiest ones, like Norway, Sweden and Denmark, which prospered through economic liberalization, and not through socialism.

Denmark's Prime Minister chastised Bernie Sanders for continually referring to Denmark as socialist - https://www.thelocal.dk/20151101/danish ... -socialist

Sweden has among the freest economies in the world, and ranks above the US in economic freedom - i.e., it's more capitalist than the US. https://fee.org/articles/should-america ... edish-way/ From about 1960 to 1990, the US went more socialist in government policies, but when it experienced stagnation and other economic issues, it reversed that course in the 1990s, and it was the economic liberalization and fostering of free market capitalism that made Sweden economically viable.

Norway and the rest of the nordic countries are free market capitalists, and pro free trade - https://thehill.com/opinion/finance/402 ... ade-lovers

The difference is that social democracy is not democratic socialism. We've been over this before, but in short - social democracy is economically capitalist, with a social safety net. Democratic socialism is a socialist economic system where decisions are made by majority vote. The difference between capitalist and socialist is that in socialism the means of production and property are held primarily by the State, whereas in capitalism they're held primarily by the people.

Germany isn't socialist. The UK is not socialist. Canada is not socialist. Oz is not socialist.

All the best countries in the world are capitalist economies.

[Cunt]

Well that’s absurd rubbish. The Second amendment was not put in place so that people could fight their government if they didn't like a particular tax - and even if it was, let's face it, you ain't gonna win.

Nor are you in any conflict between a professional army and a so called 'militia'.

It is for self-defense and resistance to oppression.

Of course, you have to respect a persons right to defend themselves - even if they are wrong - before you can get your head around it.

It's tough for folks who aren't allowed to carry even a knife around, if it looks dangerous...

[Forty Two]

Well that’s absurd rubbish. The Second amendment was not put in place so that people could fight their government if they didn't like a particular tax - and even if it was, let's face it, you ain't gonna win.

Nor are you in any conflict between a professional army and a so called 'militia'.

The Second Amendment was put in place because it was a natural right of Englishmen. It's based on the traditional English common law right to bear arms, and the English Bill of Rights of 1689. Englishmen had a natural right under common law to defend themselves and others, and to resist oppression.

In the context of the formation of the US, one has to understand the context of the formation of the country in the first place. Each of the 13 colonies were separate and that separation meant something - everything ,actually. It was not assumed that they were one nation. And, there was a major distrust in the colonies to ceded sovereignty. They were just getting rid of one overlord - the British Crown, and they were not keen to kneel to another. The colonists at the time were distrustful of "standing armies." It wasn't like today where having a standing arm was considered a normal or a fait accomplis. They didn't want one. A federal government meant that there would be a federal army. The colonies were concerned that with overwhelming military power, a federal army would be able to enforce its will on the states. The Federalist Papers make clear that one of the reasons for a second amendment was to make sure that the States had "militias" that could repel a federal army.

That kind of thing sounds odd to us today ,because we grew up with a US that was one country, and most people can't explain why their state is a state, and they don't understand the difference, really ,between the states and the federal government. Back then, though, a Virginian was a Virginian. A Georgian, was a Georgian. A Pennsylvanian was a Pennsylvanian. They were not Americans first.

Anyway - blame the English for this most "ancient of rights" - and that Papist bastard James II, and Dutchy's ancestors who helped win the Glorious Revolution and usher in the English Bill of Rights which reestablished the right of the people to keep and bear arms in jolly old England.

[Rum]

Well that’s absurd rubbish. The Second amendment was not put in place so that people could fight their government if they didn't like a particular tax - and even if it was, let's face it, you ain't gonna win.

Nor are you in any conflict between a professional army and a so called 'militia'.

It is for self-defense and resistance to oppression.

Of course, you have to respect a persons right to defend themselves - even if they are wrong - before you can get your head around it.

It's tough for folks who aren't allowed to carry even a knife around, if it looks dangerous...

Not as tough, I suspect as sending your kids to school wondering if today will be the day a mass killer shoots a few dozen of his or her friends.

Oh - that is 57 times more than the combined G8 countries. About one a week - slightly more and, though I am sure it is acceptable to one of your way of thinking in total twice as many as have been killed in wars you either started or joined in with.

[laklak]

FlorDA! FlorDA!

Fuck the Feds.

[Cunt]

It's tough for folks who aren't allowed to carry even a knife around, if it looks dangerous...

Not as tough, I suspect as sending your kids to school wondering if today will be the day a mass killer shoots a few dozen of his or her friends.

Oh - that is 57 times more than the combined G8 countries. About one a week - slightly more and, though I am sure it is acceptable to one of your way of thinking in total twice as many as have been killed in wars you either started or joined in with.

I don't know what is 57 times more than combined g8 countries, or what that has to do with a persons right to defend themselves.

You must be using English, but I don't follow your 'logic', Rum.

Do people have a right to defend themselves? When do you think it is right to take away that right?

[Sean Hayden]

Sure they do. If they really want to be safe though, they might consider giving up their right to bear arms. If it is truly about protecting ourselves, then we should discuss why having so many guns has failed to make us safer, and why it has failed to protect us from say, other guns.

[pErvinalia]

All the best countries in the world are capitalist mixed economies.

[Scot Dutchy]

What a simplistic notion: "the right to defend". It says everything about the USA. A disjointed society suffering from extreme inequality only on a par with many a third world country. Bad health, bad education and no social cohesion.
What a way to live; make sure you are carrying a gun just in case.