«

[Galadrin]

I'm sorry, I thought my first post made it clear that I feel the same as all three of you Tulac, Sebatianos and PrejudiceSucks, and that my second post was an explanation of how exactly my comment about jet technology fit in by showing, at least in some small way, how the authors logic is flawed. I just tried not to throw in any capitalist dog comments because I don't feel that they're helpful k: .

@ Sebationos: please read my posts thoroughally before deciding to criticize what I do and don't know.

[Sebatianos]

Well your previous post (except for the mentioning of the top down management) gives no points to what you know about communism. And even that statemant isn't really true. The "ultimate" leader of a communist regime would be the head of the communist partry (the general secretary), but there was also the president... They didn't share power, they were officially keeping each other at check The real power didn't come from the above, but from the behind (usually the high ranking military people and people in charge of the secret police - they had no official political power, but they were pulling the most strings - usually they were also the closest advisers to the both political figures). So this isn't TOP-DOWN management.

But we're getting here. If you want to talk about commnism - I'd be more then happy to talk with you about it (just remember, there are many people here - including me - who actually lived and do remember those communist regimes; and didn't just read about them. Don't know your background, but so far haven't given me enough hints to make me believe you really understand communism).

[Tulac]

Hehehe...
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-0...obertson-_x.htm

[PrejudiceSucks]

Yeah, but he's just a tit. I think that's Pat Robinson is the one that should be killed myself. He should be strung up off a lamppost and people should get to punch him to death for being a right-wing prick.

Being a critic of Bush doesn't make you a saint and that guy clearly has something wrong with him

Feminism makes women into child-killing, witchcraft practising lesbians my arse. I know plenty of bisexual girls (it's close enough for my argument) that do neither of the two. I don't know their views on capitalism though.

[Flop]

I always thought it was funny how the only piece of Soviet propaganda the west ever bought into (and in fact encouraged quite a bit) is that USSR was a communist country.

There's no way you could call Chavez a communist. He has made a number of progressive reforms, and because of that he's well-liked by the poor and hated by the rich. But at the end of the day, Venezuela is still a capitalist country. It will be exciting to see if it will remain so.

Anyway, that website is biased beyond belief, and I wouldn't put any stock in anything it says.

Edit:

@ topic: Well, I never read anything about the booming economies in south american states were the US had installed some US-friendly puppet-dictator after overthrowing legally elected socialist governments... So I'd say at least let 'em try for themselves this time. It won't get much worse anyway.

It's a bit late for that I'd say. There has already been one coup against Chavez, which the CIA knew about beforehand (and probably supported).

[Tulac]

If one would google articles about Venezuala, you would see how many of the US ones are similar to this one, most of the western media is trying to portrait Chavez as an evil dictator, although he was democratically elected...
Hmm mayne that's got to do with him raising taxes on oil...

[Flop]

Well, I haven't tried googling it. I get my info from this website. Sure, it's just as biased, but I trust it more than most other sources. It also happens to report specific things, instead of just ranting on about how evil socialism is.

[Borodin]

Originally posted by Sebatianos@Oct 5 2005, 12:07 PM
Maybe you haven't realised, but the "inate inefficiencies and inability to provide for people" were not there because of the system, but because of the people that siezed power.

Truth. But this can be said of *any* system: it is only as good or bad as the people who run it. And of course, they want you to buy into the system, because that helps keep their followers in line, believing themselves to be the annointed heirs.

The problems associated with Communism have to do with the fact that Bolshevism made itself a one-party government in early 20th century Russia, and set about a bloody destruction of all political opponents. That pattern has been repeated in all subsequent Communist governments. If Communism can ever become a strictly economic approach to governing, without latching onto power in a manner that jails, tortures, and/or kills all dissent, then it could end up forming parties to take periodic control in parliamentary democracies, such as those of Europe. But short of changing its nature completely, will the Communist ideologues ever agree to this?