Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Darzin

Communism vs Capitalism does anyone actually think we'd be better off in a Communist society?

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Mentat said:

I'm not sure I agree. We're not really speaking about any specific democratic nation, but most of them are social-democracies which accept private property and enterprise but at the same time intervene in the economy, redistribute wealth to greater or lesser degree, provide some kind of social network and while they don't own all the national means of production, do own a really big chunk of the nations' infrastructure (plus a whole lot of other stuff, participate in mixed economy companies, etc.). That was part of my previous point. Democracies tend to cover the middle ground institutionally. Different political parties might pull it in different directions, but democratic institutions (if working properly) also tend to have a 'moderating effect' on said parties.

How many 'communist' countries have enshrined white supremacy and slavery into their constituiton or founding documents in the same way as 'democratic' or 'capitalist' ones have?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, larrytheimp said:

How many 'communist' countries have enshrined white supremacy and slavery into their constituiton or founding documents in the same way as 'democratic' or 'capitalist' ones have?  

I would guess zero. Communist countries fail long before the mores of society change that much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

squabs! good to see you kicking around.

of course, the USSR withstood two invasions from y'all, and lasted over 70 years under siege. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, sologdin said:

squabs! good to see you kicking around.

of course, the USSR withstood two invasions from y'all, and lasted over 70 years under siege. 

The Soviet Union didn't withstood the invasions. The Soviet Union troops retreated like cowards because they were afraid to die. It was the Ingush and the Chechens that helped USSR win the war. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, sologdin said:

squabs! good to see you kicking around.

of course, the USSR withstood two invasions from y'all, and lasted over 70 years under siege. 

USSR could not defeat Finland. 

Finland Vs USSR

Finland Sniper Vs Russia

Without the Chechens and Ingush. Russia has no military man power. This is why Russia allows Kadyrov.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
13 hours ago, Targknight said:

USSR could not defeat Finland. 

Don't exaggerate. The Finns put up much more of a fight than anyone expected, but in the end they were defeated and had to hand over some territory as well as war reparations.

18 hours ago, Squab said:

I would guess zero. Communist countries fail long before the mores of society change that much.

It's zero, but it's not obvious that all of them will fail. The most obvious reason is that Communism was first tried long after the abolition of slavery and serfdom. Another reason is that most societies don't care nearly as much about their founding documents as Americans do and therefore these documents are mainly aspirational and don't go into that much detail.

That said, most Communist countries don't share the recent Western obsession with "diversity" and in fact the dominant remaining Communist power definitely has a dominant ethnicity and is by no means ashamed of this. Here's the current composition of the CCP Politburo. As you can see, the Chinese are far more selective of the races and ethnicities they allow into power than, say, the Americans. Also note that only one of the twenty five is female (and not one of the Standing Committee, of course).

Edited by Altherion
Correct misspelling of "Finns".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Altherion said:

Another reason is that most societies don't care nearly as much about their founding documents as Americans do and therefore these documents are mainly aspirational and don't go into that much detail.

I agree with the first part but you're definitely wrong about the second part.  Take a look at the list of constitutions by state and sort by number of words.  The US' is decidedly among one of the least detailed in the world.  There's pros and cons to that, but constitutions have become less aspirational and more detailed since 1789, not the other way around like you're suggesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Altherion said:

That said, most Communist countries don't share the recent Western obsession with "diversity" and in fact the dominant remaining Communist power definitely has a dominant ethnicity and is by no means ashamed of this. Here's the current composition of the CCP Politburo. As you can see, the Chinese are far more selective of the races and ethnicities they allow into power than, say, the Americans. Also note that only one of the twenty five is female (and not one of the Standing Committee, of course).

Not sure I would agree with this. My own former country, Yugoslavia, was very careful about making sure that all republics and ethnicities were equally represented in the top leadership. There were many both written and unwritten rules regarding ethnic diversity, and it sometimes led to mediocrities being promoted to high positions simply because an ethnic quota needed to be filled. The most extreme example is probably random army sergeant briefly becoming acting head of state.

The USSR was similar to this, and even Stalin was very much concerned with ethnic diversity. Ironically, as a Caucasian (meaning person from the Caucasus region, not white person), he was constantly worried about Caucasians being overrepresented in the leadership roles and Russians being underrepresented.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Altherion said:

Don't exaggerate. The Fins put up much more of a fight than anyone expected, but in the end they were defeated and had to hand over some territory as well as war reparations.

It's zero, but it's not obvious that all of them will fail. The most obvious reason is that Communism was first tried long after the abolition of slavery and serfdom. Another reason is that most societies don't care nearly as much about their founding documents as Americans do and therefore these documents are mainly aspirational and don't go into that much detail.

That said, most Communist countries don't share the recent Western obsession with "diversity" and in fact the dominant remaining Communist power definitely has a dominant ethnicity and is by no means ashamed of this. Here's the current composition of the CCP Politburo. As you can see, the Chinese are far more selective of the races and ethnicities they allow into power than, say, the Americans. Also note that only one of the twenty five is female (and not one of the Standing Committee, of course).

Why you use wikipedia?

http://heninen.net/sopimus/1944_e.htm 

I got confused with Estonia, Latvia, Lithuanian. I did not read history for a long time. Thanks for the correction.

The communists were defeated by Romania. The Soviet Union staged a revolt known as Tatarbunary Uprising.

Not to mention Afghanistan defeated the Soviets.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

The Soviet Union didn't withstood the invasions. The Soviet Union troops retreated like cowards because they were afraid to die. It was the Ingush and the Chechens that helped USSR win the war. 

wut

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/6/2020 at 6:27 PM, DMC said:

The intellectual/technical distinction on the proper definition of a "communist" regime is rather academic.

Sure. But this discussion  (this thread) is in fact academic, isn't it? By that I mean that if we are to discuss the merits of "communism" we can't focus on Stalin or Mao... or the discussion is moot. This thread can only make sense IF we make the difference between "Marxism-Leninism" or "Maoism" on the one hand and actual communism  (whatever that may be) on the other hand. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Rippounet said:

But this discussion  (this thread) is in fact academic, isn't it?

Fair, this entire board is by nature "academic."  Just raising a different point about messaging.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I want desperately to live somewhere that has leadership that isn't insane and actively out to kill me and everyone and everything I love.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, DMC said:

Just raising a different point about messaging.

And I'm saying that point kills any discussion: if the Soviet Union was communist no one in their right mind could ever defend communism again. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Rippounet said:

And I'm saying that point kills any discussion: if the Soviet Union was communist no one in their right mind could ever defend communism again. 

The point that we should distinguish "socialism" from the regimes of the USSR/China/Cambodia etc.?  I don't see how that kills discussion.  Again, if you wanna call that latter something other than communist, fine, but it's not surprising that most people do do so as a heuristic because most of those regimes called themselves communist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, DMC said:

 it's not surprising that most people do do so as a heuristic because most of those regimes called themselves communist.

Most people also believed smoking was good for health when cigarette companies claimed so. I'm not sure why you of all people would dumb things down here. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

I'm not sure why you of all people would dumb things down here. 

Because I'm talking about political messaging - particularly towards the American electorate but really any electorate.  In that vein, sometimes dumbing things down is the best communications strategy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DMC said:

most of those regimes called themselves communist.

North Korea calls itself a democratic republic. Nobody uses that as an example of what a terrible idea democracy is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...