Quote:Na_th_an, I was (unsuccesfully) trying to make fun of SJ Zero's confusion about Communism and fascism.
Nek, what about 1998? Rhiannon, Nek, I have nothing more to say to you.
No confusion, Communism is an economic system in which wealth is distributed equally among the masses because the workers own the means of production.
Fascism is a form of government in which a authoritarian person rules a country with an iron fist, usually using extreme measures to eliminate dissent.
The one who is confused may be you. IF we were going to war against communism, rather than fascism, we really would be nothing more than greedy capitalist pigs. Of course, we weren't. We were fighting greedy and cruel leaders like Stalin and Castro, who are fascist leaders. We were fighting the power hungry regimes which seem to be part of the Soviet Communist package. We were NOT fighting so we could take the means of production and rip them from the hands of the workers to put them back in the hands of the capitalists
Personally, I'd be fascinated to see what a pure democracy like switzerland paired with communism would be like. With no people in power, would communism work? I don't know...
So you mean that the USA is some kind of hero that frees countries from their slavery, without wanting anything in return? I strongly doubt so.
USA fought Castro and the USSR not to free the poor citizens, but to keep being the 1st economic power. That simple. No hero tales here.
Quote:We were fighting greedy and cruel leaders like Stalin and Castro, who are fascist leaders. We were fighting the power hungry regimes which seem to be part of the Soviet Communist package. We were NOT fighting so we could take the means of production and rip them from the hands of the workers to put them back in the hands of the capitalists
Then, what happened with Pinochet? What happened with Noriega? Both of them were supported by the USA to install true <capitalist> dictatorships. Why the US still selling weapons to ultra-right wing paramilitars in South America?
USA have just fought dictators when they were communists.
Quote:The one who is confused may be you.
Nope, "we" were fighting communism.
PS: What you describe is called SOCIALISM.
The cold war was kind of messed up. A political tool, yeah, look at McCarthyism, but there was a general fear of communism among state officials. By the end of World War II, we knew what Stalin was doing, and we knew he was power hungry, and wanted to take over countries. The USSR, even before the end of the war, was beginning to take over countries. Containment was the goal of the US since Truman, and it was a genuine concern for the defense of America.
On that note, we liked dictators. They were dictators, brutal disgusting warlords, but support them. It's a US custom to put a dictator in a third world country, and when noone likes him, give another dictator weapons to oust the present one, starting the cycle over. 3 more dictators and we get a free toaster.
Have an of you seen 'Bowling for Colombine'?
Yes, this is relevant to the thread.
Quote:On that note, we liked dictators. They were dictators, brutal disgusting warlords, but support them. It's a US custom to put a dictator in a third world country, and when noone likes him, give another dictator weapons to oust the present one, starting the cycle over. 3 more dictators and we get a free toaster.
Yes, yes. Very true, very true. But it is a difficult and expensive proposition to establish capitalistic democracy instead of dictatorship. It's hard enough establishing democracy in Afganistan and Iraq, for instance. That's only two countries. The US had to deal with many more back in the cold war. Also, with new technology and organizational ideas, it is now much easier to establish capitalistic democracy than dictatorship. It's also impossible to find a good dictator nowadays. . .
Zap: Yes I have, it was weird, some people saw
the right to own a gun as a reason to own one.
They couldn't explain it further like:
-Why do you own a gun?
-Because I have the right to...
I went back and forth from laughing, because they were acting so
weird, to scared, because this is the reality...
Quote:SJ Zero Wrote:The one who is confused may be you.
Nope, "we" were fighting communism.
PS: What you describe is called SOCIALISM.
No, it isn't.
From dictionary.com:
A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members.
A scheme of equalizing the social conditions of life; specifically, a scheme which contemplates the abolition of inequalities in the possession of property, as by distributing all wealth equally to all, or by holding all wealth in common for the equal use and advantage of all.
Note: At different times, and in different countries, various schemes pertaining to socialism in government and the conditions of domestic life, as well as in the distribution of wealth, have been called communism.
Living in what is considered a socialist country myself(canada), let me assure you that we don't have much "ownership" of anything. We have high taxes and a relatively liberal government who likes giving money to poor slackers(Mike Harris is my hero! :p). The Cold War managed to warp the perceived meaning of the words, but it is, at heart, the same thing; an economic system, and nothing more.
Here's what socialism is:
1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
2. The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.
In this, the government owns the means of production. It's meant as an intermediary between capitalism and communism. In practice, many governments like the idea of redistributing wealth far more than the idea of giving up all that power, while others never meant to become communist, and just like the idea of socialism by itself.
nope, you just proved yourself wrong.
Quote:No confusion, Communism is an economic system in which wealth is distributed equally among the masses because the workers own the means of production.
Communism is not an intermediary of anything. Communism is a socialism, with a twist: the idea is that you actively instigate rebellion in non-communist countries until everyone is communist.
Russian communism isn't even close to socialism. But it's not fascism, you fool!
Quote:nope, you just proved yourself wrong.
SJ Zero Wrote:No confusion, Communism is an economic system in which wealth is distributed equally among the masses because the workers own the means of production.
Communism is not an intermediary of anything. Communism is a socialism, with a twist: the idea is that you actively instigate rebellion in non-communist countries until everyone is communist.
Russian communism isn't even close to socialism. But it's not fascism, you fool!
GOD DAMNIT, READ WHAT I AM SAYING!!!!!
SOCIALISM IS AN INTERMEDIATE ON THE WAY TO COMMUNISM.
COMMUNISM IS
NOT A FORM OF GOVERNMENT.
COMMUNISM IS A
ECONOMIC SYSTEM.
SOCIALISM IS AN ECONOMIC SYSTEM.
CAPITALISM IS AN ECONOMIC SYSTEM.
FASCISM IS A FORM OF
GOVERNMENT.
MONARCHY IS A FORM OF GOVERNMENT.
DEMOCRACY IS A FORM OF GOVERNMENT.
A COMMUNIST COUNTRY CAN BE A DEMOCRACY, OR A LIMITED MONARCHY, OR A FASCIST DICTATORSHIP.
A SOCIALIST COUNTRY CAN BE A DEMOCRACY, A MONARCHY, OR A FASCIST DICTATORSHIP.
A CAPITALIST COUNTRY CAN BE A DEMOCRACY, A MONARCHY, OR A FASCIST DICTATORSHIP.
Understand?
Edit:
P.S. don't bother responding to ANY of my posts again until you actually READ them.