ballen0351
Sr. Grandmaster
How much do those countries send out in foreign aid? The US sends Billions to other countries even some on that list. Have they been involved in a War for the last 13 years spending trillions of dollars?
Can Communism Ever Work?
- Thread starter Sukerkin
- Start date
ballen0351
Sr. Grandmaster
Nonsense. Total BS
granfire
Sr. Grandmaster
OMG foreign aid.....
Good lord, really!
The amount spend on that is pittance compared to, say....defense....
Don't take a national trade deficit into account....
Foreign aid tends to reap much higher awards than it costs, on many levels, selling US junk to those nations is usually one outcome. It's hardly altruistic and rather cheap, considering alternatives.
ballen0351
Sr. Grandmaster
Guess you missed the part where I said trillions. But when comparing the US to other nations foreign aid comes into play
OP
OP
No it isn't "Total BS", my friend, it's just not a point of view you want to accept and one that you may have heard one time too many, which makes you angry.
Likewise with Foreign 'Aid' either really - that's just foreign policy with a velvet glove rather than an iron fist and to pretend otherwise is an error. Best not to go into where all that money came from in the first place of course; it wasn't from free trade and pure-hearted, honest, economic activity
.None of which is relevant to the perfectly good discourse on why Communism has not and probably cannot be a viable form of governance for humans. Tho' it might be relevant as to why there has never been and can never be a true Capitalist system of governance either. The Victorians were the closest we've had to that and that sucked the resources of a fifth of the globe before money lost it's meaning ... and still failed to be a truly free expression of the market.
ballen0351
Sr. Grandmaster
It is nonsense I was talking about this position that he's more free then we are. What freedoms do they have in Australia that I don't have here?No it isn't "Total BS", my friend, it's just not a point of view you want to accept and one that you may have heard one time too many, which makes you angry.
Likewise with Foreign 'Aid' either really - that's just foreign policy with a velvet glove rather than an iron fist and to pretend otherwise is an error. Best not to go into where all that money came from in the first place of course; it wasn't from free trade and pure-hearted, honest, economic activity
None of which is relevant to the perfectly good discourse on why Communism has not and probably cannot be a viable form of governance for humans. Tho' it might be relevant as to why there has never been and can never be a true Capitalist system of governance either. The Victorians were the closest we've had to that and that sucked the resources of a fifth of the globe before money lost it's meaning ... and still failed to be a truly free expression of the market.
OP
OP
They've got ...
View attachment 18318
Which counts as a win, I believe
And I confess I failed to realise that your point was in reference to a comparison of relative freedoms rather than a denial of the inherent truth of what K-Man said :bows in apology:.
View attachment 18318
Which counts as a win, I believe
And I confess I failed to realise that your point was in reference to a comparison of relative freedoms rather than a denial of the inherent truth of what K-Man said :bows in apology:.
ballen0351
Sr. Grandmaster
They've got ...
View attachment 18318
Which counts as a win, I believe
And I confess I failed to realise that your point was in reference to a comparison of relative freedoms rather than a denial of the inherent truth of what K-Man said :bows in apology:.
We have them too at the zoo. Plus we have Kate Upton for the win.
pgsmith
Master of Arts
Communism on anything other than a very small scale is doomed to failure. This is because of the nature of life on our planet. All life here (including man) evolved through competition and strife. The utopian society that you describe in your original post depends upon elimination of competition. It may be possible to do on a small scale, where innovation and improvement is not necessary and those few people that are naturally dominant or competitive can be suppressed or eliminated. On a larger scale however, it would be much harder to suppress the competitive ones who will end up gravitating to positions of leadership, where they will inevitably distort the level playing field that communism requires to function.
Just my opinion.
Just my opinion.
It would seem to me that this very criticism could be leveled at nearly all Western governments. Based on my observations, all societies struggle with elite classes taking the reins in government. What I would like to see is an example society where the power of government is restrained.
This is a perfectly reasonable question. In my experience, other than a few notable exceptions, Australia and the United States basically "allow" people to do the same things. The degree of freedom in our societies aren't that far apart.
I think the fundamental difference between the US and Australia (and other countries by default) lies in who holds the reins of government power. In the US, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, BOA, Monsanto, Merck, Halliburton, Raytheon (and all of the sattalite corporations that surround the Military Industrial Complex) and other corporations dominate the government.
For those of you who live in other countries, K-man, Sukerkin, et al, who holds the reins of power in your society?
A better question is: "Why would anybody WANT communism to work?" I like a world where if you work hard and things break your way you have a fighting chance of having something more than the bum who does nothing. That's a nice photo though..
OP
OP
Far too much now of people throwing the "It'll never work!" meme on the table. Recall that the opening sentiment is that "Insects don't feel pain, which is why humans can never have a truly Communist society".
Read the OP again and answer the ****ing question! Bit much to expect out of the Internet I suppose :lol:.
The whole point was to try and envision a way in which it could work, no matter how elaborate or how much groundwork would be necessary, rather than enumerate the obvious reasons why it hasn't.
Read the OP again and answer the ****ing question! Bit much to expect out of the Internet I suppose :lol:.
The whole point was to try and envision a way in which it could work, no matter how elaborate or how much groundwork would be necessary, rather than enumerate the obvious reasons why it hasn't.
OP
OP
The Crown. Many people don't realise it but that's where the power actually lies for, to borrow your "government is violence" theme, that is where the allegiance of the military is given (and most of them mean it too (or the ones that I know do).
On the surface it would appear that government is relatively free of outside interests with a couple of notable exceptions. Influencing governments of all persuasions is the press. They can make or break a government. What they get back is favourable treatment in preserving their position WRT competition.
On the Labor side the big backers are the unions. Prior to recent times they controlled the party by determining policy at the Labor party conferences. The conference members comprised six union representatives from six states and they were dubbed 'The 36 Faceless Men" by one Liberal leader and this slogan cost the Labor Party the election. Now, the unions still have a major influence but not quite as much. Big business, and small business too for that matter, usually sides with the Coalition. Because of disclosure rules the big business end of town usually hedge their bets and back both sides, knowing that they need the ear of government regardless of its colour.
Within the electorates themselves, local issues play an enormous part that any member ignores at their peril. In our election a couple of weeks ago with a huge swing back to the conservatives one of the sitting members, actually a front bench member of the cabinet, lost her seat to an independant because she had ignored her constituents.
So, to give the short answer, apart from the press and the unions, Australian politics is relatively clean when compared to the rest of the world. Certainly no big companies have anything like the influence they have in the US.
:asian:
Tgace
Grandmaster
It could work by killing all opposition and forming secret police squads to liquidate ...er reeducate anybody who wont fall in line. Or you could starve people by the millions if they are an obstacle.
Oh....that's already been done.
Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2
OP
OP
:chuckles: But that didn't really work 
.
Like all totalitarian and brutalist regimes, the squeezing iron fist has an impact in the short term but the longer it goes on the more resistance there comes to be. That's why the premier Western nations like the USA and the UK chug along quite nicely - we think we are free because we are told we are and we still 'believe' it, rationalising the necessity of restrictions and control, even when we intellectually know we are not really free (thinking somewhat in the absolute terms of extreme Libertarians or anarchists there).
. Like all totalitarian and brutalist regimes, the squeezing iron fist has an impact in the short term but the longer it goes on the more resistance there comes to be. That's why the premier Western nations like the USA and the UK chug along quite nicely - we think we are free because we are told we are and we still 'believe' it, rationalising the necessity of restrictions and control, even when we intellectually know we are not really free (thinking somewhat in the absolute terms of extreme Libertarians or anarchists there).
Tgace
Grandmaster
:chuckles: But that didn't really work
Like all totalitarian and brutalist regimes, the squeezing iron fist has an impact in the short term but the longer it goes on the more resistance there comes to be. That's why the premier Western nations like the USA and the UK chug along quite nicely - we think we are free because we are told we are and we still 'believe' it, rationalising the necessity of restrictions and control, even when we intellectually know we are not really free (thinking somewhat in the absolute terms of extreme Libertarians or anarchists there).
I still posit that my way is the only way it will "work". Taking some of my property through taxes is different from taking ALL of the fruits of my labor at the literal point of a gun....
Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2
Actually, seeing Suk's response, we have the Queen as our nominal Head of State albeit her power is vested through her representative determined by our Parliament. This person, called the Governor General is an eminent Australian who is basically above politics and can if the situation arises such as 1975 when we had a deadlocked house, not unlike the US situation, dissolve the Parliament and send the whole sorry mob back to the people.
That's a little of an aside because although the Governor General oversees the Parliament, she doesn't influence it. The military swears its allegiance to the crown, although that is more ceremonial than anything else.
:asian:
