Is Communist's movement dead now? - Page 3




 
--
 
July 17th, 2010  
Kruska
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by A Can of Man
haha you did the perfect reversal of Glenn Beck. All you need is a chalk board.

However, I don't think Communism is dead. An idea that is so hopeful cannot die and it will be used by those who need an army of poor, uneducated and desperate people until the end of time.
Hello ACoM,

Communism is as dead as dead can be. Communism already lost it's support in the late 80's - it was dictatorial countries that kept the name alive. Since the "Bear" got a huge hickup in the 90's any support towards insurgency organisations or so called communist dictatortial countries was cancelled.
Due to injustice, corruption, landdistribution issues, military juntas and the rich and poor conflict - those who opposed such governments due to a "social" thinking were branded usually as communists by the USA and as such they were indeed - welcomed by the Soviet-union as a partner in regards to the cold war.

As long as the above forwarded causes keep existing there will always be people or groups that will oppose these injustices. They won't call on communism - since it is proven to have failed - and usually ended in meerly changing a capitalistic dictatorship with another dictatorship.

So communism as a political solution towards social discrepancies is dead - the fight towards social injustice is not - and is funded by socialist or liberal minded governments.

Due to communism having died - the cold war also died, and this brought a major change of re-shaping/defining world domination. There is no more - we NATO and USA against Moskow and them.

The new confrontation is since the late 90's, pure capitalism against social economy. And a social economy has nothing in common with communism.

Regards
Kruska
July 17th, 2010  
334
 
 
Wouldnot call the socialist movement something for uneducated people either ..those ive met were pretty sharp thinkers , definately not the desparate , poor or analfabetic kind .
July 17th, 2010  
A Can of Man
 
 
Those would be the "lieutenants" of those movements. Every side has their intellectuals. I have met plenty of these folks and they seemed to not be able to answer one basic thing: why do they own so much stuff?
Although they mean well and they have heart, I have found that their way of life and things they believe in are too often at odds with one another. It's like they will never give up their good life brought about by capitalism, but have a huge feeling of guilt about it.
But when you need numbers, the poor and less educated will be the ones who will do the fighting.
--
July 17th, 2010  
Kruska
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by A Can of Man
......It's like they will never give up their good life brought about by capitalism, but have a huge feeling of guilt about it.
But when you need numbers, the poor and less educated will be the ones who will do the fighting.
Hello ACoM,

okay fair enough - there are those who grew up in wealth or financial security. If e.g. this person would be from Germany, Holland, Sweden or almost any other European country - they wouldn't have gained their wealth through plain capitalism - but due to a social economy.
As such they feel that social discrepances could or should be avoided as much as possible.

This whole Islamo matter - is caused by a social discrepancy between those upper class rulers and members that never cared for the poor in Algeria and Egypt upon their independence. Instead of making e.g. schooling/education an affordable issue it remained the privilage of those holding the $$. Instead of "thinking" about it, the upper class in Algeria and Egypt welcomed those islamic schools run by self proclaimed educators.

And as such these "religious fanatics" found an easy prey to indoctrinate those "less fortunate" in the 60's and 70's. Almost all of today's Islamic revolutionaries and terrorist leaders come exactly from those schools or Islam University in Tunesia and Egypt.

Regards
Kruska
July 17th, 2010  
A Can of Man
 
 
No, Europe's wealth has been built on capitalism.
Being capitalistic does not necessarily mean the absence of any social welfare. The wealth is generated from buying and selling. Then portions of the profits are taken in by the state and redistributed to the public in various ways. That's still capitalism.
I like to think of it as the state investing in its land, resources and people.
Though if you followed all my threads you'd know that I am completely against a totally free market economy, I am also convinced that capitalism is the only way to generate any wealth, and if wealth is not generated, it cannot be distributed very well without running the country bankrupt.
Likewise, if a country does not invest in itself, it will have some small pockets of very wealthy, powerful and smart individuals but the rest of the country will turn to sh1t.
July 17th, 2010  
Kruska
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by A Can of Man
No, Europe's wealth has been built on capitalism.
Being capitalistic does not necessarily mean the absence of any social welfare. The wealth is generated from buying and selling. Then portions of the profits are taken in by the state and redistributed to the public in various ways. That's still capitalism.
I like to think of it as the state investing in its land, resources and people.
Though if you followed all my threads you'd know that I am completely against a totally free market economy, I am also convinced that capitalism is the only way to generate any wealth, and if wealth is not generated, it cannot be distributed very well without running the country bankrupt.
Likewise, if a country does not invest in itself, it will have some small pockets of very wealthy, powerful and smart individuals but the rest of the country will turn to sh1t.
Hello ACoM,

I guess I know what you mean but IMHO, it isn't or wasn't just capitalism contra communism - there is a social economy inbetween - that created wealth in Germany and many other European states after 1945. India and China are the present examples of how well a social economy can get on in making money. A totally free market economy - that would be capitalism. AFAIK giant mergers or market controlling mergers are not being regulated by the US government as it is in Europe. So the US in this regards and quite a lot of other matters is still far more capitalistic oriented then the so called social economies.

So Europe a bit less social, and the USA a bit less capitalistic and you would have China

Regards
Kruska
July 17th, 2010  
A Can of Man
 
 
Yes but really the social economy you're talking about is Capitalism making the wealth and socialism investing in the country.
I think it is much more accurate to see it in that light because when that is forgotten, I think people are too quick to try to throw out the source of the money.
July 17th, 2010  
Kruska
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by A Can of Man
Yes but really the social economy you're talking about is Capitalism making the wealth and socialism investing in the country.
I think it is much more accurate to see it in that light because when that is forgotten, I think people are too quick to try to throw out the source of the money.
Hello ACoM,

nope - I think we are viewing in different perspectives.

Making money isn't defined as capitalism or communism - it is simply doing business and making a profit. Such as a communist enterprise was making profit as well. (some of them ).
It is the regulations/laws that regulate the price of a product - e.g. the price for milk in China is regulated - or price for butter in the EU is regulated - unlike in the USA - were a producer is free to impose or charge his price (take it or leave it) - that would be capitalism.

If you have a company with more then e.g. hundred people you must hold an election for a employee representative - or the quota in regards to handicaped people you need to employ. Those would be social programms in a social economy.

Price regulation is part of a social economy - and that is were it starts off with - how taxes are spend onto social programs would be another issue.

So by just making a healthy profit in accordance with regulations - doesn't make one a capitalist at all.

Regards
Kruska
July 17th, 2010  
George
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kruska
Hello ACoM,

nope - I think we are viewing in different perspectives.

Making money isn't defined as capitalism or communism - it is simply doing business and making a profit. Such as a communist enterprise was making profit as well. (some of them ).
It is the regulations/laws that regulate the price of a product - e.g. the price for milk in China is regulated - or price for butter in the EU is regulated - unlike in the USA - were a producer is free to impose or charge his price (take it or leave it) - that would be capitalism.

If you have a company with more then e.g. hundred people you must hold an election for a employee representative - or the quota in regards to handicaped people you need to employ. Those would be social programms in a social economy.

Price regulation is part of a social economy - and that is were it starts off with - how taxes are spend onto social programs would be another issue.

So by just making a healthy profit in accordance with regulations - doesn't make one a capitalist at all.

Regards
Kruska
Only in a Monopoly can the producer set his price, take it or leave it. In the free market competetors can under cut the competition to sell more product & make more profit by selling more units. A command or regulated economy doesn't funtion efficiently or not as efficiently as it should because the restraints distort economic results.
July 18th, 2010  
A Can of Man
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kruska
Hello ACoM,

nope - I think we are viewing in different perspectives.

Making money isn't defined as capitalism or communism - it is simply doing business and making a profit. Such as a communist enterprise was making profit as well. (some of them ).
You just described capitalism.
Unlike many systems and ideologies, capitalism wasn't really invented to do anything. It simply evolved the day there was more than enough food to go around.
 


Similar Topics
Lithuanian anti' pedophile hero found dead
Dougals joke post. MODs please let back to back posts
Kamikaze shot dead in London, UK. Third attack.
Controversy Rages as TV Show Lists U.S. War Dead