What communism means

Ask an average person (an American) what communism is and they'll say "it's something that's evil where the government tells you what to do". Isn't that happening right now?

I don't know. There are 300 million people so I guess a few people will ask "what is communism?" today. Whether it is happenning right now or not is anyone's guess.

What do you expect after all the anti-communist propaganda during the Cold War?

What do you expect after all the AIDS during the 80s?

Go yiff someone, you wont regret it

Communists taste like chicken.

We're not communist, we're capitalist. Communism is when the government controls and plans the economy, and all property is shared by the community and the government. Nothing is private in this case.

"Hey, I just realized that people are fucking stupid."

Liberalism for teh win. ;)

Socialism is a government-controlled economy.

Communism has no government and no real economy to speak of.  Everyone gets an equal share of what everyone produces.

There has never been a Communist nation.  The word "Communism" has only ever been used by propoganda.

Communism is an argument from ignorance, it doesn't take into account reality. Libertarianism is based on scientific method and thus has proven succesful in ending tyranny across the globe. America (fuck yeah) is the most libertarian nation on the planet next to Switzerland and during the 20th century has defeated all major monarchic, fascist and communist tyrants. It is currently dealing with fundamentalist tyrants in Iraq and Afghanistan, countries which will turn out like modern Germany, South Korea and Japan.

I think you put too much faith in historical patterns if you believe that Iraq or Afghanistan will ever turn out like Germany, South Korea and Japan who at least lost their wars against America (among others) respectably. It doesn't take much effort for the Western powers to march into the desert and occupy mudhuts in Sand Niggerville.

The US will never bring "democracy" to the land that natural selection forgot. Germany, Japan, and Korea had respectable cultures, industry, infrastructure, a brain between them and didn't exercise the phenomenon that I shall refer to as "Jihad Logic". Libertarianism will never work in places as unstable as Iraw or Afghanistan, democracy is a slippery slope and frankly the inhabitants of these regions were a lot better off under the stability of a leader such as Saddam Hussein.

What if the Iraqis elected a president that we didn't like? What if the Iraqis elected a religious fundamentalist as their president? What if the Iraqis elected a president who knew nothing about global politics, or the Middle East itself? What if Iraqis elected a president who isn't intellectually qualified to be the president, but might have a lot of business connections? What if there was perhaps a family connection behind the president, perhaps his Father was the president? I know it sounds completely absurd.

So the Japanese Empire got a bit wild/power hungry in its old age and Germany killed a few Jews (naughty naughty...), but as nations they were incredibly civilised and educated, making it incredibly easy for the post-war powers to bring order there. I've gone into a bit of a rant here, but people like No. 11 here, people who suck up Bush's propaganda and talk it's their Manifest Destiny to spread democracy throughout the globe, and that their government gains nothing from it really piss me off. The kind of people that think that because they can use GRAMMAZ, they can also exercise the right to talk utter bollocks.

The only tyrants that Americans can't defeat, sit in the White House.  The cancer grew in the heart of the Republic from day one.  Once that cancer infected the heart of the common man, the Republic was over.

>>13
And Turkmenbashi. Don't forget Turkmenbashi.

>>12
The Japanese were fairly uneducated during World War 2 actually, and I don't know about civilized.

>>13
I don't know man, there's a tyrant sitting in Russia right now raping human rights up the asshole, yet the White House is barely putting up pressure.

What is "progress"? Things being built and the economy getting bigger? Well, only a few rich people are benefitting from that.

>>16
That's the point of the other kind of progress: the attempt to make it so that more than just the wealthy will benefit from these gains. There's a lot of wins and losses in that regard, and right now we seem to be on the downswing. Much of the third world is being manipulated by corporate interests, though it's not as bad as with United Fruit in South America. Even the redistributionist policies of Hugo Chavez have been taking from the middle class to benefit the rich. In America, I believe that upward mobility will essentially be gone once the capital gains tax is abolished, which is likely to happen in the next ten years.

>>15
Russia will never be a target because they have as many nukes as the United States due to the Cold War dick waving contest.

>>12
Iraq is civilised and organised. It's just that no one is willing to cooperate with the existing tribal power structures. It's only a matter of time before we figure this out and things settle down.

>>15
They obey'd hirohito, much like arabs obey their tribal imams or whatever.

>>13
So why are people better off today more than they've ever been?

>>16
Jargon since everyone has differnet ideas as to what is progressive. To some people putting ethnic minorities back into the cotton fields in chains would be progressive.

>>17
Things are getting better. Look at Argentina, Chile and Nicaragua, compare them with the situation 30 years ago. All of these countries had their governments tamperred with by the CIA, who were in fact just there to help preserve their freedom and defend them against the Kremlin. You'd love it if Moscow won wouldn't you, despite the sufferring and endless poverty that would entail.

tamperred with by the CIA, who were in fact just there to help
Hi, I'm the local cat-burglar. I'm here to help.

I can't believe you can say that seriously. The CIA's intentions are to serve US interests, and nothing more. Just like the KGB served the USSR.

It's nice that the US won, but don't go around claiming they did it out of the goodness of their hearts. No state does.

>>1
Real communism doesn't work. There have been no real communist countries, only fascist ones claiming to be communist, just like North Korea (Kim Jung-Il even claims to be democratic because he does everything in the interests of his people; lol People's Democratic Republic of Korea indeed).

Then I guess how capitalism systematically exploits people is a much better alternative. After all, 10 million children/year is more than acceptable

>>22
Real communism does work, on a small scale. Plenty of communes have proven this. real communism doesn't work on a national scale.

It can't really work effectively on a national scale. so break nations. fake ideas based on imaginary lines drawn on a map, usually all they are good for is exploiting the people within them. the benefits of a nation can be emulated between communal alliances that would work the same way without the tyranny of national rule.

I used to wonder what the fuck was so wrong about everyone getting equal amounts. I thought it was just all the rich people who hated communism due to them having to spread around the wealth a little bit...

>>25

But now you know that there is no incentive to be a doctor when you get paid the same amount as a janitor.

>>26
Yes there is: satisfaction. It's the reason I went into my profession. If I was paid the same as everyone else, I'd still do it in a heartbeat.

Unfortunately, a large number of idiots do it only for the money. This hints at the problem of equal pay: if my vocation didn't make a pile, there would be far fewer of us, yet the demand would remain the same. Do you see the problem here?

Also, an interesting question is who wants to be the janitor or garbage man?

Communism is just for a bunch of greedy and/or lazy fucks who don't want to have to earn their living. In such a system, there would be no innovation, since no one is paid for individual work. Why do anything new when there's no profit involved?

>>27

Go ahead and be a doctor because you enjoy it. It doesn't change the fact you need an absurd amount of time spent in school. The only reason people want to be a doctor is because of the money. Your aspirations mean shit when compared with society. Nobody would want put in the hard work to become a doctor if you got paid the same as somebody else who got their job by looking in the newspaper.

>>29
I am, of course, assuming that if everyone is earning the same, that the education will cost the same (or be free). That's how things usually run in the communist countries I've visited. If you remove that assumption, then perhaps what you say is true.

Also, I disagree with you over money being the be-all-end-all of chosing a vocation. If that were true, everyone would be trying to get in the bar association or finish an MBA (until the market became so saturated they were worthless). Nobody would become a priest. Yet neither is true.

See, what is hard work for some people is fun for others. If it's fun then money becomes a secondary concern, at least as long as you earn enough to live comfortably.

>>24
Then instead of a few big nations fighting each other, there will be a bunch of little communities warring and bickering with no one to keep them in line, no authority.

>>30

If it's free, it doesn't mean people will get the jobs they couldn't get educated for when educated wasn't free. People are fucking lazy. If they can get paid the same as a doctor while being a clerk then they wouldn't bother getting educated for being a doctor.

Money isn't the ultimate factor when choosing a job, but it is important. Motivation is also very important. In our society, the smart people are motivated and work hard for the best jobs. Unmotivated people are usually stuck with the shit jobs, they don't want to spend 8 years trying to get the best job. People become priests for a wholly different reason: religious motivation. This is different from money and motivation: its a form of spiritual insurance in their eyes. They believe they will be rewarded for doing so.

I don't agree that professional athletes should be paid what they are in our society. I also don't agree that they should be paid the same as someone who didn't work as hard for their position.

>>26
The incentive is if  someone doesn't everyone will die retard. People understand enough to know that without doctors, a society will quickly fail.

Personally Id rather want a doctor who loves their job than a doctor who just wants money. Id rather have a doctor who cares about me and not my wallet.

Communism is for the greedy? hello. Capitalism is the system based on greed you fuckup.

>>32
You know, I think we're arguing past each other. I've already mentioned that I would do this job if I earned the same as everyone else, because I enjoy it. Likewise, the education wasn't a chore, it was interesting and engaging (although not without painful moments). So... I really don't care how long it took to get my education; the journey was enjoyable in its own right.

However, I don't think a communist system would work for the reason you mentioned. There are a lot of people who do this work because it pays well, or it's prestegious (haha, what?), or their parents insisted. If the pay was the same, these people would be gone instantly... and thus there would be far too few of us. Demand isn't elastic.

Unfettered capitalism is detrimental to society, but if you get rid of motivators like money, the system will choke because there isn't any way to get people to do what needs to be done short of force.

With communism, people who aren't really interested in becoming doctors are forced into getting that education and doing work they don't enjoy simply because they have an aptitude for it.

With capitalism, people who would be talented doctors work for minimum wage their entire lives because they don't have enough money to go to medical school.

>>33

Don't be a prick, no need for name calling.

I want a doctor who I can reach in a good amount of driving time and one I don't have to wait 3 hours in line for. The doctor doesn't care about your wallet, just his. You don't have as much money as him? He could give a fuck less.

I never said communism is for the greedy, I said it wont work because people want the easiest way out. Look at the world you're in. Full of fucking laziness and apathy. Communism only works in small populations. Any larger and people will begin to become dependent on others and ultimately everything will collapse.

>>34

Indeed, the said system would work quite well with the right mindset. I don't see the mindset in the world I live in though. I think pure capitalism is injustice to people in certain positions, so there must be some sort of action taken to balance rewards to a reasonable amount. Not just completely though.

>>35
With communism, people who are really interested in becoming doctors are forced into becomming agricultural labourers and doing work they don't enjoy simply because they have an aptitude for it.

With capitalism, people who would be talented doctors can get loans to pay for medical school by proving they will earn a high income in later life with their aptitude.

>>37
with communism, people who are really interested in becoming doctors will become doctors if they have the aptitude for it.

>>35

people have some choice in their careers in communism.

An ideal society would be where when every man turns 18 the government gives him physical and written tests to see what jobs he is best suited for. And if training is required they would give him training.

Of course if there was a shortage of certain jobs they would have to make exceptions they wouldn't normally make.