Why is communism a bad word?

[HeyYou]

Thank you for perfectly illustrating my point. You do not have a clue. It seems that you couldn't get clue, even if you stood in field of clues, drowned in clue musk, giving the clue mating call.

 

You have no idea what you are talking about. You are simply spouting off what you have been indoctrinated with. Your handlers should be proud.

[Oblivionaddicted]

Thank you for perfectly illustrating my point. You do not have a clue. It seems that you couldn't get clue, even if you stood in field of clues, drowned in clue musk, giving the clue mating call.

 

You have no idea what you are talking about. You are simply spouting off what you have been indoctrinated with. Your handlers should be proud.

So according to you the absence of laws to prevent the cumulation of an economical and a political power when democracy is based on the separation of powers is just a petty detail perhaps?

And according to you the same applies for the parties' financing even if the most financed ones are always the winners?

 

I can't wait to see your demonstration, clown!

Edited December 29, 2020 by Oblivionaddicted

[Perraine]

The thing I see here is that you totally and utterly fail to understand the the principles and systems you are so vehemently defending. Even Marx himself ruefully admitted that Socialism can never actually work. The biggest reason is that it would first require virtually the ENTIRE population of the planet to embrace it simultaneously, The other reasons are a bit complicated, but they pretty much boil down to Incentive, and value.

 

Things MUST have a value ascribed to them, you cannot allocate them equally, so you end up needing something like a "Bureau of Allocations" to decide things such how many hours of work a Farmer does, is worth 1 hour of a Brain Surgeons "work", because then there is no incentive for someone to become a brain surgeon.

 

Only in some fictional Utopia such as that of Star Trek's "federation" where they have the fictional technology of "replicators" which make pretty much all material requirements essentially "free". could such a system work, and for the same reasons neither can any of it's derivatives such as Marxism, Communism, etc.

 

You also seem to confuse socialism with Social Democracy's and they are two VERY different things. They also do not function without some external input. None of them are self sustaining, and even the very politicians and leaders of the Scandinavian countries you seem to so admire continuously go on record telling people that they are NOT socialist countries.

 

I live in Australia, where he have "free" (you would probably say "socialized") Healthcare, Education, Welfare and even a great deal of the national infrastruture as well. But the government is Trillions of dollars in debt, and we have almost oppresively high tax rates. The only reason the country hasn't collapsed completely is because a) though we have a land mass virtually equal to that of North America, we have a TINY population, and can't realistically support much more. 2) Our country has VAST reserves of resources, which, while they last, through mammoth exports offset the staggering cost of the governments expenditure.

[Oblivionaddicted]

You're totally out of the subject.

 

What I'm denuncing is the concentration of powers as a common point between the right-wing/fascism and marxism-leninism.

 

Nothing prevents a government from managing a welfare-state while keeping the need of public spendings at a low level (by allowing the use of biogas made from the organic wastes for example) while financing it by taxing the rich and preventing the fiscal avoidance.

 

The trillions of debt your government has are a third-party problem. And nothing prevents a country from having a lot of debts without any welfare-state, when there's no financial transparency nothing prevents the politicians from multiplying the luxury spendings for example.

[Perraine]

Actually YOU are the one totally missing the point. Stupid "labels" and rhetoric aside, You cannot just simply "tax the rich" because all that will happen is the rich will leave ... with their money. And any that may remain will soon run out of it as well. So what happens then? You have to tax the "not so rich" until they are bled dry. Next comes the "average" and on down to the poor. To paraphrase Margaret Thatcher "The problem with Socialism, is that you eventually run out of other peoples money"

 

You then have two choices and/or consequences, both of which end in piles of bodies. Either the people lose everything and starve because they have no alternatives or you start killing people until they comply and have nothing left to give, even their lives. Both of these things have happened over, and over, and over again, yet people still seem to want to cling to this delusional idea.

 

Having said that, there is no doubt that Capitalism isn't from perfect, it's inherent vulnerability to corruption is it's most glaring issue, but it is far, FAR and away the best solution humanity has come up with so far.

[Oblivionaddicted]

Actually YOU are the one totally missing the point. Stupid "labels" and rhetoric aside, You cannot just simply "tax the rich" because all that will happen is the rich will leave ... with their money. And any that may remain will soon run out of it as well. So what happens then? You have to tax the "not so rich" until they are bled dry. Next comes the "average" and on down to the poor. To paraphrase Margaret Thatcher "The problem with Socialism, is that you eventually run out of other peoples money"

 

You then have two choices and/or consequences, both of which end in piles of bodies. Either the people lose everything and starve because they have no alternatives or you start killing people until they comply and have nothing left to give, even their lives. Both of these things have happened over, and over, and over again, yet people still seem to want to cling to this delusional idea.

 

Having said that, there is no doubt that Capitalism isn't from perfect, it's inherent vulnerability to corruption is it's most glaring issue, but it is far, FAR and away the best solution humanity has come up with so far.

So according to you obligating the riches to keep their money in their country of origin is impossible perhaps?

 

Or you will probably explain me it's democratic if the public poisoners of the petroleum lobby for example can explode the need of public spendings without paying anything for it like marxist-leninist apparatchiks but it would be the dictatorship if the laws prevented them from praticing the tax avoidance by making them citizens with rights and duties?

 

For your info and like I already wrote many times ; all the things the dictators need to make a coup d'état or a purge are the police, the army, the control of the justice and of the medias.

In other words no dictator never made any coup d'état by creating a welfare-state or any purge by nationalizing a company.

 

 

You didn't deny my other points by the way.

Edited August 10, 2020 by Oblivionaddicted

[Deleted54170User]

Communism is not a bad word.

It's the people who used it to make a new way of life than made it a bad word because their militant groups marched into other colonies and forced it on people who didn't want change in their lives. The bad people got the other colonies children to thinking, children who were just getting callous from the hard work, even though they had gloves on, on their hands, and the work causing them aching muscles, also the weak minded youth, and mental and physical wimps started to belieive the bad people and began thinking they wouldn't have to do all the chores they had.

May as well call it Corona-Virus because it makes the elders ill and hardly affects the children who still have a strong immune system, but are slaves, to stupidity and non-conformity, because of the Internet.

So it's those people who spread out calling themselves communists, that moved into other peoples peaceful communities, those people that are bad not the Word.

[deter2]

because power hungry psychopaths like communism

communism is good for the elites and the ruling class

not for ordinary people

[Perraine]

 

 

So according to you obligating the riches to keep their money in their country of origin is impossible perhaps?

 

Or you will probably explain me it's democratic if the public poisoners of the petroleum lobby for example can explode the need of public spendings without paying anything for it like marxist-leninist apparatchiks but it would be the dictatorship if the laws prevented them from praticing the tax avoidance by making them citizens with rights and duties?

 

For your info and like I already wrote many times ; all the things the dictators need to make a coup d'état or a purge are the police, the army, the control of the justice and of the medias.

In other words no dictator never made any coup d'état by creating a welfare-state or any purge by nationalizing a company.

 

 

You didn't deny my other points by the way.

 

What planet do you actually live on?

 

Of course you cant stop businesses and corporations from taking their money elsewhere. The minute you try and "force" them to pay, they'll just close up shop and leave. How would you stop them?

 

Any group that has power, whether they are a Petroleum company, or a Pharmaceutical company or an Energy company will be able to "influence" public policy. That's the way the world works. You can try to use legislation to curtail some of their excesses but they will only allow that to go so far before leaving. And the biggest problem is the politicians NOT the businessmen. Businessmen just want to make their businesses successful. The politicians who take the bribes and kickbacks at the expense of the public good are the real villains.

 

I also have no clue what history books you've read, but clearly they were written by imbeciles. Revolutions ALWAYS start with someone offering "the people" free stuff, and freedom from oppression. The military and police forces usually follow along, because generally most members of those groups are their BECAUSE they care for the people, and want what's best for them, so they'll follow the one telling them that they are "fighting for the people". Then the media follows suit. They always offer a "welfare state" to people, which lasts just long enough for them to get into power ... And then Orwell shows his hand ..."All people are equal, but some a more equal than others".

 

Hitler did it, Stalin did it, all "dictators" have done it. And the Democratic Party in America is now trying to do EXACTLY THE SAME THING! They are the true fascists.

The problem with America is that it's based on a Capitalist Republic, and far too many people know what's actually going on, and know that self determinism is the key to success, not phantom hand outs that ultimately destroy countries.

"Revolutions" have only ever worked in Monarchy's or Oligarchy's and a "socialist revolution" would NOT work in America.

 

I know so called "scholars" have tried to force Fascism into being a "right wing" ideology, but the FACTS are, that the tactics used are ALWAYS used by so called LEFT wing adherents, not those labelled as "right wing".

 

I also didn't actually see any valid points that needed addressing that weren't already covered.

[xrayy]

 

....

I also have no clue what history books you've read, but clearly they were written by imbeciles. Revolutions ALWAYS start with someone offering "the people" free stuff, and freedom from oppression. The military and police forces usually follow along, because generally most members of those groups are their BECAUSE they care for the people, and want what's best for them, so they'll follow the one telling them that they are "fighting for the people". Then the media follows suit. They always offer a "welfare state" to people, which lasts just long enough for them to get into power ... And then Orwell shows his hand ..."All people are equal, but some a more equal than others".

 

Hitler did it, Stalin did it, all "dictators" have done it. And the Democratic Party in America is now trying to do EXACTLY THE SAME THING! They are the true fascists.

The problem with America is that it's based on a Capitalist Republic, and far too many people know what's actually going on, and know that self determinism is the key to success, not phantom hand outs that ultimately destroy countries.

"Revolutions" have only ever worked in Monarchy's or Oligarchy's and a "socialist revolution" would NOT work in America.

the only problem with your claim is that you try to rank democrats alongside fascist dictators with no reason. doing this is simply stupid and ignorant. democrats do not try to do what you claim. there is no evidence for that and it is obviously just another falsehood you seem to believe and to spread. show me any evidence that more than 0% of your stupid claim is true.

my opinon about your claim: you don't know what a fascist is and you are an ignorer of the right wing fascist problem. no community needs supremacists and extremists(left and right wing!) - they are just a burden. and we do not need right wing extremists who try to explain by ignoring history why left wing people or democrats are the real fascists while unable to separate them from fascist dictators.

left dictators are as bad as fascist dictators and quite the same - that is the only true part of your claim. all the rest has no logic, ignores history and you should at least deliver evidence for that. if you do not - and i'm sure you will not - it is just another falsehood spreaded by a right wing fan boy. apart from that merry christmas ;)