Communism Vs. Capitalism

Communism killed 100 million people, Capitalism kills hundreds everyday.

Think about it, the Capitalist countries fighting wars in the Middle East and around the world, are killing hundreds of civilians and soldiers everyday. Over the past 100 years, which has killed more? Communist countries or Capitalist countries?

>>1
The capitalists you speak of are in fact communists. They work for the state.

It's not about communism or capitalism. It's about big countries wanting more power and using different ideologies to justify that goal. USSR went after countries in eastern-Europe, the Middle-East, Asia and Africa in order to "liberate the working classes from the oppression of the capitalists", the US went and is still going after those same countries to "end the dictatorships threatening the world" and "spread democracy". There is no real difference, only that as the USSR was a totalitarian regime, so it could afford to be a lot more clear in it's goals.

>>3
Every country has a certain amount of impetus to expand. Clearly the US ideology is superior as of yet the US has never expanded it's borders through violence and always gives back the countries it conquers.

Neither are any damn fucking good.

It's the same with religious debate, everyone wants to be the "right one" or the "best one". Secret is, when you compromise values for your "way of life" you've just set us back another 4000yrs of development and evolution.

We all know what's wrong and right, so stop hiding behind bullshit fucking labels, you know what you did...

>>1
that's the basic problem people have with trying to think clearly about what ideology or system of thinking is going to work for creating a nation or world of good, sound governance.

the problem is that everybody thinks "bah, they both suck"

this isn't true.

the truth is that men are easily corrupted, and charlatans take the reins of power at alarming speed in any system that cannot complete identify and block them from attaining influence.

the united states worked during the time of its founding because it had, to date, the best system contrived and implemented to prevent corrupt men to attain the ranks of power.

socialism didnt work because those lenninist retards advocated *doing things* corruptly "temporarily" (yeah right) to create the "dictatorship of the proletariat" (which is the most retarded oxymoron ive ever heard) in order to establish a just society.

well, as we all know now, they were fucking stupid morons who were otherwise pretty useful... thats if you were joseph stalin.

however the constitutional republic system implemented by the united states wasnt perfect and it too was eventually corrupted.

the real issue now is to aggregate and educate groups that will attempt to make another attempt to create good governance, taking the strengths of the constutional republic system as was implemented in the united states and then attempting to safeguard it from the flaws inherent in it which eventually led to its demise.

Capitalists don't need to use military force to get countries on their side like Communists do. Instead they just pay them to get on their side.

>>7
The free market favours peace. Peace is profit.

>>8
The Military Industrial Complex approves of this post.

>>9
Only naive liberals do not believe that peace is attained through superior firepower.

>>10
only naïve republicas believe that peace is attained through superior firepower.

>>11

EITHER THEIR WIT UZ O DEY AGAINS US

>>4
You need to read more about the friendly dictators. Fuck, every US cold war policy apologetic needs to read moar about the friendly dictators. As long as you dont you seem like naive libertarians arguing taxes below the tip of the nuke.
http://home.iprimus.com.au/korob/fdtcards/Cards_Index.html

>>11
Superior firepower is a major component in ensuring peace. France made the mistake of believing liberals when they said ww1 was due to an arms race reaching fever pitch so they neglected to spend anything whilst Hitler was on the rise. Are you going to tell me that stopped Hitler's arms race? There were an enormous amount of pussies in Paris prancing around yammerring on about pacificism and not being afraid of what they don't understand. What's there to understand about Nazism? What's there to understand about fundamentalist Islam? Are we missing something? If so please tell us. Until then stay out of our fucking way.

>>3
Every country has a certain amount of impetus to expand. Clearly the US ideology is superior as of yet the US has never expanded it's borders through violence and always gives back the countries it conquers.

HAHAHAHA. Your full of shit. I think you need to study your history.

>>15
The US gave back Japan, Germany and South Korea. They did not attempt to exterminate them as the Soviets did to Afghanistan. The soviets were liberals by the way.

>>14
France actually had better weapons than Hitler. His fucking main battle tank at that point in time was the panzer I which heaviest armament were a fucking machinegun! The best tanks Hitler had at the french invasion were the pz38(t) which he had gotten when he annexed parts of the czech republic earlier.
But im sorry for shining the light of reason on your Hitler card.

>>16
So when are the US gonna give back new mexico and texas to mexico and, well everything except manhattan to the indians? The US is freedom loving non exterminating snuggly huggly btw. And ATAOM BAOMB WHICH KILLZ 100000 CIVILIANIES! US, FUCK YEAH!

>>16

Authoritarian. Because they're "Communist" they're suddenly liberal?

>>17
Wrong. Nazi Germany began producing Panzer 4s in 1937 which had a 75 mm gun and fired HE, HEAT, APCBCHE, and APCR rounds. You haven't shone the light of reason on anything that disproves me. Maybe it is time to open your eyes and take a look at the facts right in front of your face!

>>17
gb2 19th century

>>18
Yes.

>>20

This isn't the LEFT/RIGHT model anymore, consider there is also Authoritarianism and Liberalism (as in the Individual is favored).

>>19
Okay, so how many pz IV:s was involved in operations in france? Both france and germany had prototype tanks at this time, this is not the arms race is about. As a fuhrer nuthugger you should´ve learnt the lesson that it is not quality that decides (the Tiger tank) but quality times quantity (the T-34).

>>21
There still is. Just because you cant see it does not mean it does not exist. Try removing your tunnel vision and you will have a much easier time finding lost shit like models still in use and where the fuck you put your last brain cell.

>>23

lol preteen lrnd 2 politics

Communism and capitalism are not necessarily about communism- and capitalism-countries. They are two different conceptions. Communism and capitalism don't kill people as conceptions, but maybe countries influenced (or dominated if you want) by either of these ways of politics do.

The topic should be "Communism-countries Vs. Capitalism-countries",
not "Communism Vs. Capitalism".

I can't stand poseur communists who say they support communism but aren't capable of doing back breaking work 8+ hours every day. What do they expect communism to be? They sit on their ass while everyone else works?

>>26
The point of communism is that you are supposed to do as little work as possible, and that the fruits of the work that you DO do goes straight down your pocket (in a sense).

Since the industrial revolution there has been a steady pace of automation meaning that less and less people have been necessary to produce the same amount of goods. As an political and economical idiot you might see this as something deeply beneficial for mankind and yes it can be, but not in capitalism. In capitalism you want as few workers (they cost money) as possible and as many consumers (they give money) as possible. In the economy as a whole this is an impossible equation to solve since consumers get their money from working. Yet fewer and fewer are needed in the workplace because of automation.

Anywho, in communism (in the marxian sense) this is not the case at all. In communism products are produced to fill a need, not to be sold on a market. Same thing you say? Not at all. In capitalism products that has no buyers are not produced. So, if only destitute africans has some malady and therefore need its cure badly will this in it self be enough for for the cure to be developed or at least distributed to those who need it. The product is not produced to fill a need, it is produced to be sold. If the needy are not wealthy enough to buy the product then they wont get it either. When the opposite is true then one of the basic criteria of communism has been fulfilled.

>>27
Communists and luddites aren't the same thing?  You don't say!

Communist countries can't maintain military power for long enough to kill very many people. They all either start out weak and stay weak like Cuba, or get a great start, then have to close due to AIDS, fail, and communism like the Soviet Union.

>>29

except their own people! DURRRRRRRR!

>>27

One can say a communist government more closely follows the laws of supply and demand than a capitalist one. Besides the part about jacking prices because they can.

People often say "Communism doesn't work". It works perfectly fine, just look at the Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc countries. They had no problems. So why did they abandon communism? Because the people in charge became greedy and lazy bastards who wanted to make more money than communism allowed.

I dont understand anti communists in one breath berating communism and in the next build factories in china. Whats the difference between cuba and china? The cubans has not been genocided. I guess thats enough for the US to enact perpetual embargo. So i say this for hopefully the last time. If you hate communism there is something very tangible you can do. Embargo China, boycot the fuck out of it, demand it from your politicians and local house of commerce. Until then STFU.