Leader

http://stream.ap.org/ramgen/apvideo/...tro_fall_SS.rm

__________________

pinetreescanada

a huge majority of western population stereotypically connecting Stalin with Communism. This however proved not to be the case. Lenin, Khushchev,Gorbachev all proved to be great revolutionaries and leaders who care about the people.

ZFBoxcar

That has nothing to do with whether Stalin was a communist or not. Benevolent dictators have existed before, it does not change the system they are apart of. For example, there were kind and there were cruel Roman Emperors, but to say that the cruel ones (or the kind ones) were not emperors is obviously a fallacy. The same thing is true for communism. A communist leader can be kind or evil and still be a communist. Communism is an economic system (a stupid, slapped togethor, and unworkable one), not a state of mind that you call "caring about the people". And besides that. you are assuming Lenin and Kruschev were decent men. Obviously neither was the butcher or madman Stalin was, but that is not setting the bar very high. I believe Gorbachev was a decent man, but I don't know if he even really believed in communism.

Leader

That would be false, but since you provided proof, I'll provide none as well.

barrowaj

Kruschev wasn't such a bad guy.
Here's an example: He actually initiated the above ground nuclear test ban treaty at the urgining of wordwide scientists and academia. He just had a bad temper, that's why he was removed from power.

Leader

Note that doing some good things doesn't make you a good person. Khrushchev for example may have done good things, but I can't see those things out weighing the oppression of nearly 200 million people. He could have done something to elevate some of that oppression. He didn't.

NeoLiberal

I believe that communism is not a purely economic system, It is a hybrid, kind of politico-economy system where the ruler is a dictator and economy is socialistic.

A socialistic economy ruled by a parlimentary style or presidential style democracy can not be labeled communist.

Example would be many of the western european countries as well as Canada, though none of these economies are purely socialistic in nature.

Ray

Krushchev is also a brave chap.

He is the only person in the world who has banged the podium in the UN with his Russian shoe and it did not tear!

Red Salute, my Comrades!

I am now red in the face! Held my breath while saluting to get the right hue on the face!

__________________


"Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

HAKUNA MATATA

ZFBoxcar

A democratic socialist society will never fulfill the entire communist economic program. While nationalization of certain major industries can occur democratically, people will never forfeit ALL the fruits of their labour to a bureaucracy who gives them food, shelter, and clothing and pockets the rest. The abolition of all private property will never occur democratically because those with land would obviously not want to give it up, and those without land want it for themselves. Marx obviously forsaw this which is why he determined the political system would have to be a dictatorship. So while you are right that communism is not just economic, its only because the economic system it demands will not be utilized in a democratic socieyt. Canada and Western Europe do not have communist economic systems, they have mixed-capitalist systems. And in fact the goal in the last 15 years or so has been to move towards capitalism as much as possible. Lots of privatization programs in Europe and Canada. Very little support for nationalization or renationalization.

s_qwert63

You obviously have no idea of what you are on about, next.

Pyken

Couple things I have to say here.

#1 The same thing a few others have said, it is more than an economic system. It is a way of life, politics, economics, and the rights of the citizen are all important. Equality is the main concern, what's so wrong about that (in theory)

#2 Do you honestly know much about Communism? In theory, Communism is a spectacular work of art, a society where all people are equal. I personally disagree with Communism, but that doesn't mean I cannot appreciate it. You should read some Carl Marx before you pass judgement. Oh, and before you say it's unworkable, let's remember that countries like Cuba and China seem to disagree with you (although China isn't really Marxism).

__________________
Quis Custodiet ipsos custodes?

ZFBoxcar

I have read some of the works of Marx (not all of it because there is so much of it). And its not a work of art, Marx was more focused on the historical dialectic and proving the inevitability of the failure of capitalism, he didn't really have a plan for communism, even the Communist Manifesto is more just a vague outline mixed with yet another critique of capitalism. The planning of what a communist state (since the abolition of the nation state which Marx also backed is complete garbage) was worked out by later communists. Marx's intelligence was directed towards the past and the present. The future was thought about by people like Lenin, Mao, Castro, etc.

And by your own admission, China is not Marxist. China is booming because of foreign CAPITAL investment. Cuba was only doing okay when they received generous Soviet aid packages. Now the Cuban people can only buy anything on the black (or as I would call it, free) market, using foreign currency.

Pyken

If you care to go to the trouble of actually understanding the principles behind the system of Communism, you will find that the initial statement I disagreed with in my last post was outrageous, laden with personal opinion, and not accurate. Phrases like , and do not become you, nor do they make you sound like the intelligent, educated person I am sure you are. Keep in mind the purpose of this forum.

Just because China is not Marxist doesn't mean it isn't communist. Yes, foreign capital is contributing, but so what? It is predicted that China will become the leading economy in the world, partially because of capital investment, but mostly because of distribution of wealth and the size of the population. Cuba is a different story, which I do not know much about, so I'll not pretend and speak like I do.

ZFBoxcar

It was an opinion. You have not explained to me why me opinion is outrageous or innaccurate. It is not a counter-argument to say I'm opinionated.

Please explain the connection between the distribution of wealth and China becoming the leading economy of the world. Besides, the fact of the matter is, the impovershed rural west of China pays more taxes than they can afford in order to support the economic boom of the east, who's money is NOT distributed much. And no, China is not communist. After Deng Xiopeng's reforms, China stopped being communist, and also become slightly less totalitarian (although the democracy movements cause the government to clamp down every once in a while). The Chinese economy may become the strongest in the world because of capitalism, and ironically, a communist party that is preventing the creation of a welfare state, which is usually the product of democracy. The money is all coming from outside China, not from within. Even if China was communist, which it isn't, it just proves that communism cannot be run unless it is funded by capitalism. China resembles the east Asian economies of a few decades ago. No welfare state, low taxes, but organized enough to draw in the Western capital that was fleeing the West due to our own attempts at socialism.

Leader

Notice you're full of sh*t, never make rational arguments, and should have been banned several times, next.